Woman raped before "honor killing" [Archive]

ImaginalDisc

25th July 2007, 06:29 AM

Do you have evidence that “Honour” Killings are religiously rather than culturally motivated? You may as well argue that eth punishment beatings of the IRA for (non sanctioned) drug dealers and armed robbers are “religiously motivated”.

Actually, the IRA is a religious terrorist group. The troubles of Ireland are based on religion, and catholics and Protestants in the same culture, same towns, who went to schools sometimes less than a block apart dedicated their lives to the extermination of their enemies, enemies who can only be indentified by their religious afilliation.

I think the following sections from an excellent article (http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003796.html) dispell the idea that because the Koran does not sanction honor killing, honor killings aren't an Islamic problem. Frankly, I think that idea is as absurd as saying that because belief in the Rapture isn't universal to all Christians, the Rapture isn't Christian.

There is nothing in the Koran that sanctions honor killing, but it is nonetheless true that most honor killings take place in Muslim societies. Dr. Nawal Ammar of Kent State university argues that honor killings are a "pre-Islamic, tribal custom". It has been stated by anthropologist James Emery: "Prior to the arrival of Islam in AD 622, Arabs occasionally buried infant daughters to avoid the possibility that they would later bring shame to the family." Emery suggests that honor killing in the Middle East is an Arabic tribal custom, perpetuating social patterns from the pre-Islamic (jahilayah) era.

The second Caliph - Omar (Umar, died 644 AD) - was a close friend of Mohammed. He is said to have only cried once. This happened when he recollected that in the time of jahilayah he buried his infant daughter alive, and as he did so, she brushed away the dust from his beard. Under the first Caliphs, Islam was spread by the sword, and within three centuries it had expanded to Spain in the West and to Afghanistan and parts of India in the east. It is true that in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, honor killing is almost unheard of. In Malaysia too, honor killings are apparently nonexistent. Islam did not arrive in South-East Asia until the 13th century, which may explain why honor-killing is not common in this region.

In other non-Arab Muslim societies such as Pakistan, the custom is common. If "honor-killing" is merely a reflection of local tribal customs, then it would be found to the same degree amongst Hindus and Sikhs in India, who share the same ancestors. <snip>

The Kurds of Turkey and Iraq who practice honor killings are not Arabs, nor are the predominantly Pashtun peoples of Afghanistan who engage in the practice. If honor-killing is a survival of an Arab, pre-Islamic custom, then it has been exported to Kurdish peoples and those in Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent, a "fellow-traveler" during the early (pre-Ottoman) historical spread of Islam. Therefore, I do not buy into the argument that honor-killings have nothing to do with Islam. They are a living part of its history. Adultery, according to Sharia principles, is punishable by death, and most honor-killings involve suspected adultery. Apostasy is also, according to some Islamic schools of thought, punishable by death.

Emphasis added.

ChristineR

25th July 2007, 06:32 AM

brodski

25th July 2007, 06:43 AM

Actually, the IRA is a religious terrorist group. Actually the IRA is a Maxist group, which now identifies as “culturally” Catholic- PIRA, CIRA etc have a variety of different motivations and cultural distinctions. Yes there is violent religious bigotry in Northern Ireland but religion is not the whole story at all.
The old joke about a driver being stopped by a masked gunman who demands “Mick or Prod” Only to be told “I’m an Atheist” demanding to know whether the driver is “A Mick atheist or a Prod atheist” has more than a grain of truth to it.

The troubles of Ireland are based on religion, red up on Parnell and then tell me that with a straight face.

and catholics and Protestants in the same culture, same towns, who went to schools sometimes less than a block apart dedicated their lives to the extermination of their enemies, enemies who can only be identified by their religious afilliation. they can be identified by their national identity only a part of which is religious, there is different historical ethnic background (Scottish rather than Irish), different family names, different sports played and watched- in short a different culture. Indeed the religious label and distinction has become more important as religious practise ahs declined. During the religious fervour of the 19th centaury the Irish separatist movement and its associated terrorist groups were not defined by religion.

I think the following sections from an excellent article (http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003796.html) dispell the idea that because the Koran does not sanction honor killing, honor killings aren't an Islamic problem. Frankly, I think that idea is as absurd as saying that because belief in the Rapture isn't universal to all Christians, the Rapture isn't Christian.

Emphasis added.

Can you then explain why there have been recent Honour killings in Christian and Hindu communities?

Zep

25th July 2007, 06:47 AM

No, that's the cultural interpretation of the religious diktat. They have actually "obeyed the rules" of their religion by, effectively, cheating. If they truly believed their religion, they would not be killing the girl at all. The rape simply gives them an excuse to abide by a strictly literal (and very much stretched) reading of a religious text in order to fulfill their more base desires - rapine and killing.

They shoehorned the situation to use their distorted interpretation of a religious rule to indulge in a bit of disgusting, unprovoked and uncivilised bigotry and killing. Culture - simple.

Zep

25th July 2007, 06:48 AM

Can you then explain why there have been recent Honour killings in Christian and Hindu communities?See my previous post - the religion is just the excuse.

brodski

25th July 2007, 06:51 AM

ChristineR

25th July 2007, 07:21 AM

But she wasn’t a virgin; she was killed for leaving her Husband (who raped and abused her) for another (Kurdish, Muslim) man. So what was the religious justification or motivation for raping her?

Very good point, but if you tracked that man down and asked him why he did it would he say "I'm a sexual sadist?" or would he say it was the Quran?

Sadists are everywhere so far as I can tell, but only religion tries to justify it.

Overman

25th July 2007, 07:26 AM

Barbaric.

brodski

25th July 2007, 07:38 AM

Very good point, but if you tracked that man down and asked him why he did it would he say "I'm a sexual sadist?" or would he say it was the Quran?

Sadists are everywhere so far as I can tell, but only religion tries to justify it.
If you believe that only one religion tries to justify sadism you obviously haven’t heard much about other religions. I can point you to examples of Christian, Hindu and Sikh defences of sadism- there are almost certainly many other faiths which some adherents use to justify their sadism or the sadism of others. On a very relevant note there was a recent thread her about a Yazidi Kurdish “honour” killing- Islam is not unique, howeaver you could make a good case that currently the strains of Islam which do defend or even promote sadism are more “mainstream” within that faith than ten strains of other religions which promote or defend sadism are in tehri respective faiths. They certainly get the most press.

Edited due to me forgetting my spell check.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 08:06 AM

I've explained this before, and I will explain it again until it sinks in.

I'm aware that it is convenient for those who are attempting to demonize Islam to blame "honor killings." This is a cultural practice based in some tribal peoples of the middle east. It dates back before Islam, and is not related to the Muslim religion. The fact that many of these cultures are in areas now dominated by Islam is incidental. "Honor killings" also take place in Hindu and Christian communities in the same region.

I had to explain this--yet again--in the Politics forum not too long ago, when some people went on a bender about "Islamofascists" after an "honor killing" in Iraq. Well...the problem was that the "honor killing" was committed by a Yazidi family in a Yazidi village. (The Yazidi religion is not Islamic by any stretch of the imagination.) In fact, the "crime" the poor girl had committed was that she was dating a Muslim.

frank, I trust you will now post a "mea culpa" and admit that you jumped the gun a little.

Giggywig

25th July 2007, 08:12 AM

frank, I trust you will now post a "mea culpa" and admit that you jumped the gun a little.
Why single out frank? I know it's his OP, but he's not the only one who blamed religion in this thread.

Darat

25th July 2007, 08:19 AM

I don't think you can remove religion from the equation however neither can you say that religion is the only significant part of the equation.

Read this report about two "honour" murders: http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/11/stories/2007071160811200.htm to see how much the cultural and other aspects of a society can play a part in it.

strathmeyer

25th July 2007, 08:21 AM

Cleon - the most helpful thing would be for you to point out whenever these Christian and Hindu honor killing occur.

Darat

25th July 2007, 08:25 AM

Bikewer

25th July 2007, 08:30 AM

I have heard Islamic scholars on various NPR shows condemn these practices. They maintain that such things are rooted in tribal culture, and that they have simply altered their particular view of Islam to accommodate them.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 08:44 AM

Why single out frank? I know it's his OP, but he's not the only one who blamed religion in this thread.

Two reasons:

#1. "Muslims support this?"
#2. "Another example of how Islam is a 'peaceful' religion, right?"

ImaginalDisc

25th July 2007, 08:51 AM

Two reasons:

#1. "Muslims support this?"
#2. "Another example of how Islam is a 'peaceful' religion, right?"

Just as American abortion clinic bombers speciifically cite their faith as requiring their attrocities, people who perform these honor killings cite their faith as compelling them to do it. Other people who share their faith may falsely claim that those actions are not Christian, or not Muslim, but according to the prepetrators themselves, they are.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 08:54 AM

Cleon - the most helpful thing would be for you to point out whenever these Christian and Hindu honor killing occur.

Darat was already kind enough to post a Hindu example. Here's an example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html) of a Christian "honor killing."

Darat

25th July 2007, 09:01 AM

Not from what I have heard - the reason they give for these killings is that their families "honour" has been besmirched by their daughters and sons actions so they have to be punished which leads to them being killed.

This is indeed why the term "honour killing" came about to describe these types of murders.

They do not seem to be rooted in their religious beliefs but in their cultures (see the example of the "blood feud" above - an honour killing in everything bar description), but of course their culture also includes their religion so they also have to reconcile their actions with their religious teachings.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 09:04 AM

Just as American abortion clinic bombers speciifically cite their faith as requiring their attrocities, people who perform these honor killings cite their faith as compelling them to do it. Other people who share their faith may falsely claim that those actions are not Christian, or not Muslim, but according to the prepetrators themselves, they are.

And how many of these perpetrators have you interviewed, I wonder? Very few of the news reports of "honor killings" involve such commentary from the perpetrators. There are several examples in this thread. Do a google news search for "honor killing" for more.

If you want to blame this on religion in general, that's one thing. You'd have a tough time proving it, but more power to you.

What frank is doing is blaming one religion in particular, despite the fact that the practice is by no means limited to that religion. Further, he is implying that "honor killings" enjoy widespread (even institutional) support among Muslims, which is simply false.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 09:14 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2110457.ece?token=null&offset=0

Miss Banaz had asked police for help four times but was not taken seriously (!). She even gave officers a list of five people she suspected would harm her and Mr Sulemani. (!!)

After being taken to hospital following a previous attempt on her life (!!!), Mr Sulemani recorded her fears on his mobile phone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1952129.ece

The police handling of the case of Banaz Mahmod in the months before she became the victim of an “honour” killing is to be scrutinised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, it was announced.

She allegedly told police four times before she disappeared that she feared for her life, and gave them a list of three men she thought would murder her.

An internal review of the case by Scotland Yard’s Directorate of Professional Standards has been handed over to the IPCC after strong public reaction to the case.

WTF! I hope the IPCC will rip off the *********** police a$$es.

Herzblut

Ian Osborne

25th July 2007, 09:15 AM

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 09:22 AM

If Islam couldn't accommodate the pre-existing practice of honour killings, it certainly hasn't done much to stop it.
Unlike the excellent british police, you say.

H.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 09:24 AM

But can you separate the effects of culture and religion to the point where honour killings can be attributed to the former, while the latter is exonerated? Religion is usually the most influential factor in defining a culture. If Islam couldn't accommodate the pre-existing practice of honour killings, it certainly hasn't done much to stop it.

And Hinduism?
And Christianity?
And Yazidi?

Then there's the fact that while "honor killings" seem to be centered in the Middle East, it's almost unheard of in Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country in the world), or in Southeast Asia in general.

Blaming "honor killings" on Islam simply does not make factual or historical sense; if anything, I think the practice is simply used as a way to reinforce already-existing prejudice against Islam and Muslims.

Ian Osborne

25th July 2007, 09:24 AM

Unlike the excellent british police, you say.

I didn't mean to physically prevent this specific incident, I meant to change the attitudes of the cultures which practice it.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 09:40 AM

I didn't mean to physically prevent this specific incident, I meant to change the attitudes of the cultures which practice it.
It doesn't matter whether it's a "cultural practice" or whatever. We are talking about capital crimes, rape and murder. And it is the frikking job of the police and the prosecution to fight this off.

Your finger pointing to "Islam" is rediculous. You cannot even physically point to an abstract entity called "Islam". Neither are you enabled or entitled to request anything from such entity.

But you are entitled to demand a functioning police force.

H.

Mark

25th July 2007, 09:52 AM

It seems to be an example of how some people in the West are religious bigots. As such, they gleefully post about rapes in murders by people of the "enemy religion", and then dishonestly pretend that it represents every member of that faith.

And just where is the outrage in the Muslim community over this?

I am not fond of most religions...but the Muslims as a group are exceptionally violent (much like Christians of the 14th century). To deny that is absurd.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 10:06 AM

And just where is the outrage in the Muslim community over this?

Oh, FFS. What a silly thing to ask. What do you expect, big neon signs? Flyers mailed to you signed by every prominent Imam in the known world?

"Honor killings," terrorist attacks, and so forth get routinely condemned by Muslims all over the world. When I did a google news search for "honor killing," one of the first links to appear was this one (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2371243120070723?src=072307_1005_TOPSTORY_mis sion_impossible)--where Hamas had arrested and jailed several men accused of an "honor killing." Hamas!

The fact that you are ignorant of such condemnations--either by intent or by lack of exposure--is not evidence that "honor killings" are endorsed or tolerated by the Muslim world. They're not.

I am not fond of most religions...but the Muslims as a group are exceptionally violent (much like Christians of the 14th century). To deny that is absurd.That's called "poisoning the well."

Jon.

25th July 2007, 10:32 AM

To also add there is certainly some strange thinking going on with the label of "honour killing" - for some reason this murder was not labeled as an honour killing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4621523.stm

It wasn't an honour killing at all: an honour killing, as I understand the term, is the murder of a daughter or sister for the "crime" of dating or falling in love with a man of the "wrong" faith or other identifier, or for otherwise "dishonouring" the family (eg. by committing adultery or having pre-marital sex).

This was a simple blood feud - two families hated one another for some reason; one man was killed in Albania; his killer fled to the UK; the murdered man's brother followed, and killed the killer in the UK.

FWIW, blood feuds probably have cultural roots just as deep as honour killings, but (AFAIK) people don't generally try to justify them in religious terms.

Charlie Monoxide

25th July 2007, 10:48 AM

Besides all the BS that religion profess as "truth", the montheistic religion still seem to view women as property, not the sentient human beings that they are. IMHO we continue this tradition through our abortion laws.

Charlie (Women are the n*ggers of the world - Lennon) Monoxide

Darat

25th July 2007, 11:35 AM

It wasn't an honour killing at all: an honour killing, as I understand the term, is the murder of a daughter or sister for the "crime" of dating or falling in love with a man of the "wrong" faith or other identifier, or for otherwise "dishonouring" the family (eg. by committing adultery or having pre-marital sex).

...snip..

No, the term is used for the killing of males and females that have "dishonoured" the family in a variety of ways.

This was a simple blood feud - two families hated one another for some reason; one man was killed in Albania; his killer fled to the UK; the murdered man's brother followed, and killed the killer in the UK.

...snip...

I don't see the difference - they apparently came from an area where apparently this is the culturally accepted way of dealing with "dishonour".

Jon.

25th July 2007, 11:54 AM

No, the term is used for the killing of males and females that have "dishonoured" the family in a variety of ways.

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/06/global268.htm) disagrees with you: "Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family."

I don't see the difference - they apparently came from an area where apparently this is the culturally accepted way of dealing with "dishonour".

You don't see the difference between a murder committed as part of a feud between families and one committed within a family to "preserve" the family's "honour"? In my view, the only similarity is the concept of "family honour", but even that attaches to two totally different behaviours: revenge in the one instance, (perceived) sexual immorality in the other.

Beerina

25th July 2007, 12:02 PM

Darat

25th July 2007, 12:07 PM

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/06/global268.htm) disagrees with you: "Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family."

Then they also disagree with a lot of people -including those that report on such crimes in other countries e.g. http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/11/stories/2007071160811200.htm

You don't see the difference between a murder committed as part of a feud between families and one committed within a family to "preserve" the family's "honour"? In my view, the only similarity is the concept of "family honour", but even that attaches to two totally different behaviours: revenge in the one instance, (perceived) sexual immorality in the other.

Sorry still don't see any significant difference - both are stepping outside the law that exists to "right" some perceived "dishonour" to their families.

Beerina

25th July 2007, 12:08 PM

JoeEllison

25th July 2007, 12:09 PM

And just where is the outrage in the Muslim community over this?

Here's the other big lie. I could have predicted it, but I figured that maybe this time it wouldn't come up.Muslims ALWAYS condemn these sorts of things. Every time I hear a Muslim asked about it, they always sound clearly exasperated when they say 'We always condemn it... and few of the journalists ask us, or publish our condemnation when they do bother to ask."

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 12:11 PM

America is mostly Christian, and as a for instance there are people shooting abortion doctors and blowing up clinics and such. Does that mean I should accuse my neighbors of being murderers, or imply that 9 out of 10 Americans are potential clinic bombers?

Of course you're right, you shouldn't. However, just for the sake of a comparison of scale, the UN has estimated that at least 5,000 women annually are victims of honor killings. As far as I know, no one has died or been seriously injured as a result of abortion-related violence (excluding abortion itself, before someone jumps down my throat) in the United States in almost a decade. In fact, if I recall correctly, only something like five individuals are suspected of being responsible for every clinic-related death and serious injury ever to have occurred in the United States. Acts of serious clinic-related violence occur at the rate of about two per year, and in the past 8 years or so, they've virtually all been anonymous unsolved fires for which no certain motive has been determined. To say that "there are people shooting abortion doctors and blowing up clinics" sounds misleadingly alarmist.

Besides all the BS that religion profess as "truth", the montheistic religion still seem to view women as property, not the sentient human beings that they are. IMHO we continue this tradition through our abortion laws.

That's an interesting take; one more often hears U.S. abortion law being linked to traditions of viewing children, rather than women, as property. Or were you referring to pre-Roe abortion law?

JoeEllison

25th July 2007, 12:17 PM

Mark

25th July 2007, 12:30 PM

Here's the other big lie. I could have predicted it, but I figured that maybe this time it wouldn't come up.Muslims ALWAYS condemn these sorts of things. Every time I hear a Muslim asked about it, they always sound clearly exasperated when they say 'We always condemn it... and few of the journalists ask us, or publish our condemnation when they do bother to ask."

Really. Perhaps you would like to provide an example of this community-wide outrage?

I am sure there are individuals here and there who object...but show me some example of community outrage before you call me a liar.

The Muslim culture is violent. To deny that is to...well, I'll stop short of calling you a liar. Self deluded, maybe.

The Christian community would be just as violent if given half a chance, I hasten to add. If you disagree, you have never read a history book or a Bible. The Western religions are all violent at their core; just read their "holy" texts. Psalm 137:9 in the Bible actually praises the violent slaughter of babies. Look it up.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 12:57 PM

The Muslim culture is violent. To deny that is to...well, I'll stop short of calling you a liar. Self deluded, maybe.

Stop bloviating. Provide crime stats.

The Christian community would be just as violent if given half a chance, I hasten to add.

They have no chance to murder? Why's that? No knives in the kitchen?

The Western religions are all violent at their core;

Balls! Western movies are much more violent.

H.

Mark

25th July 2007, 01:04 PM

Stop bloviating. Provide crime stats.

I like you. You use the word bloviating. :)

They have no chance to murder? Why's that? No knives in the kitchen?

Laws in most non-Muslim countries are not tolerant of religious murders. Christians are working to change this, of course, one law at a time.

Balls! Western movies are much more violent.

H.

Actually, Japanese films/tv are the most violent. But the people there are not generally Christians or Muslims for the most part.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 02:59 PM

Really. Perhaps you would like to provide an example of this community-wide outrage?

There is a mystical tool that could possibly help you. I believe the legends refer to it as Goo Gul.

The Muslim culture is violent. To deny that is to...well, I'll stop short of calling you a liar. Self deluded, maybe.

Poisoning the well, again.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 03:18 PM

The Muslim culture is violent.
I like you. You use the word bloviating. :)
I love you too. Where are the crime stats?

If you cannot deliver evidence, well, you better avoid making any empirical claim while agitating. :D

Herzblut

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 03:28 PM

Actually, the IRA is a religious terrorist group. The troubles of Ireland are based on religion ...

Those are very dubious assertions. You know that Sinn Fein and the IRA typically dismissed suggestions that they were engaged in a religious war or acted out of religious motivation, right?

At any rate, for the edification of the interested reader, here are some scholarly perspectives on the relative significance of a religious dimension to the conflict in Northern Ireland:

The conflict at its most basic can be seen as a struggle between those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom and those who wish to see the reunification of the whole island of Ireland.
To understand the development of the conflict and the emergence of Catholic Nationalists and Protestant Unionists as distinct groups, it is necessary to recognize the long legacy of Irish conflict. Centuries before the 16th century Protestant Reformation in Western Europe, the people of Ireland were in conflict with the English because of England's control of Irish people and resources. …

Of the many interrelated causes [of the conflict], religion or, more correctly, theology is probably the least important despite the fact that church membership is high in Northern Ireland … The use of the terms "Protestant" and "Catholic" to identify the conflicting groups is as much ethnic and political as religious. For most people in Northern Ireland, it is not inconsistent to say that one is not religious (e.g., never attends church or is an atheist) but at the same time to describe oneself as a Catholic or a Protestant.E. Cairns & J. Darby, "The Conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, Consequences, and Controls", American Psychologist, Vol. 53, 1998.

What has come to be known as "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland has persisted for thirty years. Although it has been defined as a Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict, it is much more a battle over national identity and equal rights than over religious belief.G. Bennett, "A Report on Belfast, Northern Ireland", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 1999.

In recent years, the religious interpretation of the Northern Ireland conflict ... has been questioned. Hickey (1984) and Whyte (1990) found little evidence that religion plays any significant role in shaping the conflict, other than to provide convenient identifying labels for the protagonists. According to some, the problem is essentially territorial conflict (see, for example, Rose, 1971). … Others have not denied the importance of territory, but have also observed elements ofclass, nationalism and ethnicity along with territoriality in the conflict (Fulton, 1988; Wright, 1987).

Some observers have argued that the religious beliefs of some of the Ulster Unionist leaders, such as Ian Paisley or Peter Robinson (Maclver, 1989; Bruce, 1986), forms the implicitly religious dimension to the problem. However, this applies only to a small proportion of the political elite and is almost exclusively centered on the Protestant community. Although most nationalist political leaders, such as John Hume, are practicing Catholics, religion constitutes a less visible component of their public image. Moreover, there is little support for the view that the churches themselves have helped to perpetuate the conflict. At the popular level, survey-based studies have concluded that religious beliefs or behavior play little role in shaping political attitudes towards the conflict (McAllister, 1982).B. Hayes, "Religious Independents in Northern Ireland: Origins, Attitudes and Significance", Review of Religious Research, Vol. 37 (1995).

There are … difficulties with [the] interpretation [that the conflict is religious]. Formal membership does not … give much support to the notion that acts of violence perpetrated against members of the other community are inspired or motivated by religion. We know from other contexts that formal religious membership and participation in religious rituals are higher in conflict situations, because people use religion as a symbol and badge of their identity. Religion becomes a boundary marker and participation is interpreted as a sign of faithfulness and commitment to the community (Barnes 31-2; Mitchell 249-50), but once the conflict is resolved or significantly diminished, there is a sharp decline in formal religious allegiance. It may be that religion [i]per se does not sustain the conflict, rather religion is used by individuals and groups to further political ends that have no intrinsic connection to religion (Elliott 450-7). Some support for this reading … [is found in the observation that] those directly involved in committing murder and fomenting sectarian violence are not particularly religious (see below).

There are other factors and arguments that militate against regarding religion as a dominant factor in the Northern Ireland Conflict. It could be argued that two different "ethnic" groups are engaged in a struggle for economic and political dominance; religion just happens to be one further point of difference between groups engaged in a conflict whose real cause lies elsewhere in a struggle for power and influence (Bloomfield 66). On this understanding, the nature of the conflict is essentially political, as rival social groups compete over limited resources. One of the biggest challenges to the interpretation of the Northern Ireland Conflict as religious is the fact that Catholics and Protestants in other contexts, as for example in Germany, Holland, and the US, do not engage in violence against each other. …

Certainly religion may be implicated in the Northern Ireland conflict and, historically, church representatives may have occasionally equivocated in condemning violence, but this does not entail that the conflict was religious. The non-religious character of the conflict or at least the assertion that the causal role of religion is slight can claim some support from the religious allegiances of those para-militaries who participate in violence. Few of those who belong to Loyalist para-military groups regard themselves as religious. They choose to identify themselves with the Protestant community, but this association is historical and political. … Interestingly, when Loyalist para-militaries "convert" to Christianity, they invariably renounce violence and extricate themselves from para-military groups. The situation of republican paramilitaries is more ambiguous, in that some certainly maintain formal Catholic allegiances and seem to be able to reconcile violence alongside [religious] commitment … [at least to the extent] commitment is in evidence when they receive the sacraments while serving sentences for murder and associated offences. … Nevertheless, violent republicanism typically does not claim Christian justification nor have the church and Catholic theologians provided such a justification. From this interpretation we should conclude that examples of church loyalty among violent republicans should not be regarded as establishing some kind of positive connection between Christianity and violence … The commitment of some republicans to the church is chiefly political and strategic or, if sincere, at least confused and inconsistent.L.P. Barnes, "Was the Northern Ireland Conflict Religious?", Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2005).

Cleon

25th July 2007, 03:37 PM

Much as I hate to say it, I actually gotta agree with ceo on this one. With the exception of some extreme Protestant groups in Northern Ireland, the question of religion is secondary at best. (The extremist Republican groups, such as the RIRA and the INLA, tend to focus more on a perceived "selling out" by Sinn Fein/PIRA.)

Wolfe Tone--arguably the founder of the modern Republican movement--was a Protestant, and the Republicans in both the North and South are rather proud of the fact. (One of the most famous rebel musical groups is named after him--the Wolfe Tones.)

I think in the west we've gotten an exaggerated view of the religious element of the conflict for two reasons: #1, for historical reasons, Republicans do tend to be Catholic and Loyalists do tend to be Protestant, and #2, Ian Paisley (nuff said right there).

But by and large the conflict has been political, religion just made it somewhat easier to identify "the other guy."

Mark

25th July 2007, 03:40 PM

I love you too. Where are the crime stats?

If you cannot deliver evidence, well, you better avoid making any empirical claim while agitating. :D

Herzblut

Stats, Gracie?

Read the headlines on any given day. What stats would you like? How many body guards do you need to go to the market in your neighborhood? How many people are killed for believing in the wrong God near your home? Any women in your town been executed by stoning for adultery lately? Kill a bunch of people for something someone did 700 years ago, did you? How about murdering Christians for being the wrong denomination?

Are you seriously suggesting the Muslim world has a crime rate comparable to the Western?

Keeping in mind (again) I think if the Christian churches ever get the theocracy they want here, we will be dealing with the exact same barbarity. And I acknowledge completely that the US at least is a very violent place...just not (usually) done in the name if "God," and not nearly as violent as the mid-east. I mean...are you just yanking my chain or what?

brodski

25th July 2007, 03:44 PM

Much as I hate to say it, I actually gotta agree with ceo on this one. With the exception of some extreme Protestant groups in Northern Ireland, the question of religion is secondary at best.

Wolfe Tone--arguably the founder of the modern Republican movement--was a Protestant, and the Republicans in both the North and South are rather proud of the fact. (One of the most famous rebel musical groups is named after him--the Wolfe Tones.)

I think in the west we've gotten an exaggerated view of the religious element of the conflict for two reasons: #1, for historical reasons, Republicans do tend to be Catholic and Loyalists do tend to be Protestant, and #2, Ian Paisley (nuff said right there).

But by and large the conflict has been political, religion just made it somewhat easier to identify "the other guy."

Of course, there is the religious dimension that there was a deliberate UK policy of creating an Aristocracy in Ireland largely consisting of members the most ardently anti-catholic Scottish churches, but even then as the years went on he distinction became more cultural than religious. The Home Rule movement was non sectarian, although that was eventually killed by the political influence of the Church of England after it was discovered that certain people couldn't keep certain appendages in certain articles of clothing and out of certain other peoples wives. But then the IRA is irrelevant to Victorian and pre-Victorian history.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 03:45 PM

Stats, Gracie?

Yes, it's called "providing evidence of your claim."

Read the headlines on any given day.

And I'm sure there's no selection bias there at all, right?

Are you seriously suggesting the Muslim world has a crime rate comparable to the Western?

No, he's seriously suggesting that you provide evidence for your claim, rather than litter the place with emotion-laden generalities, strawmen, and declarations that anyone who doesn't believe you is "self-deluded."

Cleon

25th July 2007, 03:46 PM

Of course, there is the religious dimension that there was a deliberate UK policy of creating an Aristocracy in Ireland largely consisting of members the most ardently anti-catholic Scottish churches, but even then as the years went on he distinction became more cultural than religious. The Home Rule movement was non sectarian, although that was eventually killed by the political influence of the Church of England after it was discovered that certain people couldn't keep certain appendages in certain articles of clothing and out of certain other peoples wives. But then the IRA is irrelevant to Victorian and pre-Victorian history.

Very true.

Mark

25th July 2007, 03:52 PM

Yes, it's called "providing evidence of your claim."

And I'm sure there's no selection bias there at all, right?

No, he's seriously suggesting that you provide evidence for your claim, rather than litter the place with emotion-laden generalities, strawmen, and declarations that anyone who doesn't believe you is "self-deluded."

OK, what stats---be specific---would you like? And I will do my best to dig them up.

However, you seem to be making the claim that there is no difference in the Western and Muslim worlds as far as violence. Where are your stats to back that up? Your claim seems to be that the only difference is Western media bias; that's pretty outrageous on the face of it, requiring a HUGE conspiracy; please explain to me what you are basing your opinion on.

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 03:58 PM

[Cleon's] claim seems to be that the only difference is Western media bias; that's pretty outrageous on the face of it, requiring a HUGE conspiracy; please explain to me what you are basing your opinion on.

Not to take sides regarding the actual claim, but I don't think that would necessarily require a conspiracy on any scale (in the sense of multiple people working in concert toward an agreed objective), it would just require that the bias be sufficiently widespread.

Mark

25th July 2007, 04:01 PM

Here's an interesting article for you:

Human Rights in Arab and Muslim Countries

The modern concepts of "human rights" and "civil liberties" are of Western origin, not native to the Middle East. Their introduction into the Arab world has been patchy at best, as local traditions of governance saw themselves threatened by such foreign imports. Absolutism was not easily overthrown in the West itself, as the history of Europe can attest. Nonetheless, as the record will show, the Arab states have a long way to go to catch up with the modern world in this respect. Arab regimes share one main aim - is to survive. What happens to the rights of the individual under such regimes is of little importance, and if the individual belongs to a minority group or religion, too bad for him or her. Arab and Muslim states can be broadly grouped under three categories, according to their degree of democratization and respect for human rights:

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Human%20Rights%20in%20Arab%20and%20Muslim%20Countr ies

Although I say again: the only reason this is not happening as much here and in Europe is we don't have theocracies any longer.

Mark

25th July 2007, 04:02 PM

Not to take sides regarding the actual claim, but I don't think that would necessarily require a conspiracy on any scale (in the sense of multiple people working in concert toward an agreed objective), it would just require that the bias be sufficiently widespread.

And I am just asking for evidence.

Fair is fair.

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 04:07 PM

And I am just asking for evidence.

Fair is fair.

No argument there.

Although I say again: the only reason this is not happening as much here and in Europe is we don't have theocracies any longer.

For the most part, it's not as if we used to have them either, though. There haven't been very many theocratic regimes in the West, and the ones that arose tended to be short-lived.

Mark

25th July 2007, 04:11 PM

No argument there.

For the most part, it's not as if we used to have them either, though. There haven't been very many theocratic regimes in the West, and the ones that arose tended to be short-lived.

Well, if you go back to the middle ages you certainly have a wealth of Christian theocracies; and they behaved pretty much the way the Muslim nations do now. That is my thesis here: religion (any) when it has too much influence over government is a dangerous--even deadly---thing.

I am not picking on the Muslims per se...except that they have not learned the value of separation of church and state. In the western world we seem to be in danger of forgetting that value.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 04:13 PM

OK, what stats---be specific---would you like? And I will do my best to dig them up.

How about some showing that "the Muslim culture is violent," when compared to other cultures, as you claimed?

However, you seem to be making the claim that there is no difference in the Western and Muslim worlds as far as violence. Where are your stats to back that up? Your claim seems to be that the only difference is Western media bias; that's pretty outrageous on the face of it, requiring a HUGE conspiracy; please explain to me what you are basing your opinion on.

Enjoy your straw.

Meanwhile, at this point it's fairly obvious you're just spewing rhetoric.

Mark

25th July 2007, 04:16 PM

How about some showing that "the Muslim culture is violent," when compared to other cultures, as you claimed?

Enjoy your straw.

Meanwhile, at this point it's fairly obvious you're just spewing rhetoric.

I provided you an article on this subject. Where is your support for western media bias?

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 04:32 PM

Well, if you go back to the middle ages you certainly have a wealth of Christian theocracies; and they behaved pretty much the way the Muslim nations do now.

A wealth of theocracies? In Europe? Especially before, say, the 16th century?

There really aren't that many of significance that come to mind regardless of era, actually. You have the Papal States (and now the Vatican); possibly certain principalities of the Holy Roman Empire; Montenegro for a while; arguably a handful of Swiss Protestant enclaves.

Plenty of erastianism, of course, but not much theocracy.

Mark

25th July 2007, 04:35 PM

A wealth of theocracies? In Europe? Especially before, say, the 16th century?

There really aren't that many of significance that come to mind regardless of era, actually. You have the Papal States (and now the Vatican); possibly certain principalities of the Holy Roman Empire; Montenegro for a while; arguably a handful of Swiss Protestant enclaves.

Plenty of erastianism, of course, but not much theocracy.

I concede most were not technically theocracies, but most were clearly beholden to the Church. I mean, England fought a civil war over the idea of which church to affiliate with!

Cleon

25th July 2007, 04:39 PM

I provided you an article on this subject.

Yes, Israeli government propaganda is as serious an academic study of Muslim culture as you can get. :rolleyes:

Odd, the way it didn't address anything about Indonesia and Malaysia, two of the most populous Muslim nations in the world.

ETA: BTW...You do know that government oppression is not necessarily a good indication of the overall culture, right? Right?

Where is your support for western media bias?I didn't claim "western media bias." I claimed "selection bias."

ETA: Actually, not even that--I questioned whether your thorough, methodical study of Muslim culture by "looking at the headlines" took selection bias into account.

Oddly, I don't feel particularly obligated to provide evidence for the positions you assign to me.

qayak

25th July 2007, 06:26 PM

I don't know what you are complaining about. Allah said she had to die in a most horrible way and it was carried out by good righteous folks . . . her folks.

Praise be to Allah.

And this is quite just. Allah could have had her gang raped and killed for something her father or brother did but, in his glory, he did it for something that was her own fault.

Praise be to Allah.

The Grave

25th July 2007, 06:44 PM

When was the last time an atheist committed an act of honour killing?

Any ideas?:confused:

Griff....?

Achán hiNidráne

25th July 2007, 06:46 PM

ceo_esq

25th July 2007, 07:33 PM

Of course, most religions preach the so-called superiority of men, which takes us right back to square one of this apparent chicken and egg argument.

There are certainly major religions, or religious denominations, that don't preach the superiority of men.

Cleon

25th July 2007, 07:35 PM

If I remember correctly, the ancient Romans also practiced honor killings. Perhaps this is more a symptom of societies where mals tie their concept of "honor" with the domination of women?

Of course, most religions preach the so-called superiority of men, which takes us right back to square one of this apparent chicken and egg argument.

Good insight. I think some people are so anxious to point the finger at Islam (or religion in general) that they forget that the real culprit here is sexism and patriarchy; particularly the treatment of women as property.

And perhaps it is not as extreme, but even the most secular of societies are not exempt from the issue of sexism.

Achán hiNidráne

25th July 2007, 07:50 PM

There are certainly major religions, or religious denominations, that don't preach the superiority of men.

Name one significant religion that hasn't.

The Grave

25th July 2007, 08:09 PM

There are certainly major religions, or religious denominations, that don't preach the superiority of men.

That's the funniest thing I've read all night...:D

bpesta22

25th July 2007, 08:50 PM

I think darat hinted at this above, but are we being too black n white here? Does it have to be 100% motivated by religion before we can blame religion for it? Contributory negligence!

If religion increases murder rates over the baseline, then I think it fair to claim religion can lead to evil, or that an act of evil can be because of religion, even if the 95% of people in the same religion as the perp express post facto outrage over it.

I don't think you'll see many atheists slamming planes into buildings. Does that mean the sole motivation for 9/11 was religious? No. But, to claim it wasn't at all religiously motivated is equally ignorant, imo.

To be black and white though I think it parses like this:

There are atheists who kill;
There are theists who kill;
There are people who kill because of their atheism
There are people whio kill because of their theism.

Any murder has to be one of these-- i think it covers all possibilities. I'd bet, even factoring in base rates for murder and atheism, that cell 3 and 4 are under-represented relative to the first two.

But, I'd bet that cell 3 is vastly underpresented relative to cell 4.

Atheist Russia may have killed millions of people, but not for atheism.

Catholic europe killed 1000s of people, precisely because of religion.

Mark

25th July 2007, 10:28 PM

Good insight. I think some people are so anxious to point the finger at Islam (or religion in general) that they forget that the real culprit here is sexism and patriarchy; particularly the treatment of women as property.

.

Really? Please provide evidence for that statement.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 11:23 PM

The troubles of Ireland are based on religion

:dl:

Classic.

Sorry, return to OP

c4ts

25th July 2007, 11:42 PM

Does that mean I should accuse my neighbors of being murderers, or imply that 9 out of 10 Americans are potential clinic bombers?

10 out of 10 Americans are potential clinic bombers. You possess the potential to bomb any clinic you want regardless of your culture, race, ideology, or religion.

ceo_esq

26th July 2007, 12:01 AM

Name one significant religion that hasn't.

Interesting; you've changed the tense, which raises the question of whether there are religions that don't "preach the superiority of men" but which did at some point in the past. At any rate, I'll just address the present. If we can agree that the doctrinal teachings of Catholicism are as set forth in their Catechism, it seems relatively clear on the subject:

369. Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being-man" or "being-woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God.

...

1934. Created in the image and likeness of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

1935. The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."

...

1938. There also exist sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: "Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace."

[ETA:] There may be other relevant passages I didn't get to, but if there's anything in the Catechism instructing the faithful, in equally unambiguous language, that men are superior to women, I'd be interested to know about it.

Darat

26th July 2007, 02:06 AM

...snip...

Does honor survive as a drive completely independent of religion? And if so, is it enough to kill your own daughter without (random religious argument) from Faith?

It is daughters and sons - for some reason the female killings seem to garner more publicity, the example I linked to above was labeled a "blood feud" but reported entirely as secular "honour" killing. Yet I suspect the culture that they came from is also a very religious one - anyone know?

(Note again I am not saying religion has no part to play in all of this just that it is only one factor and I don't think it can be the significant factor since "honour" killings occur across different cultures with different religions.)

Leif Roar

26th July 2007, 02:48 AM

One opinion I once saw raised was that the modern Western counterpoint to the Eastern honour killing are the family murder-suicides that, at least in Scandinavia, are euphemestically referred to as "family tragedies."

frank462

26th July 2007, 03:43 AM

Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush in the OP. Obviously not all Muslims support this type of action. And honor killings are not prevalent in every Muslim country. But they happen a lot in some Muslim countries and Islam is a contributing factor. And since women are most often the victims, here are a few quotes from the Quran regarding women:

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15

Obviously all civilizations have had similar views about women at some point back in history. Most of them have progressed out of the dark ages into modern times. But some middle eastern Islamic countries have not and still hold women as second class citizens. That was the point of my post. Islam is enabling this barbaric behavior in countries that have a tradition of honor killing. And I will say again that is precisely why I am opposed to Islam and all other superstitions/religions.

mummymonkey

26th July 2007, 04:07 AM

A Sikh honour murder. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6906735.stm)

TriangleMan

26th July 2007, 04:18 AM

You have parsed down a heck of a lot doing those Qur'an quotes:
A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
I have (and this is a fragment of a very long passage) And get two witnesses our of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.
Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
Agreed, male children should inherit twice that of your female children, but the passage mentions shares to the deceased's mother, but not the father, nor does it mention that the deceased's brothers receive a bigger share than sisters. Have you wondered why it was set up that way? (my guess is that because women receive bride money on marriage that their husband has to pay them)
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
How about: And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify confine them (women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.
You kinda skipped the four witnesses part.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
Rather than me quoting this rather long verse I'd like you to quote the whole verse from wherever you got this interpretation from. I think that 4:34 is not quite as harsh as you are interpreting it.
Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
What the heck?!? My Qur'an has Except the weak ones among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan, nor are they able to direct their way
Not only is there reference to men as well as women but the beginning seems to indicate that it is referring to things in a previous passage, doesn't it?
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
*Sigh*
O you who believe! Verily, among your wives and your children are your enemies (who may stop you from the obedience of Allah); therefore beware of them! But if you pardon (them) and overlook, and forgive (thier faults), then verily, Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.
Your wealth and your children are only trial, whereas Allah! With Him is a great reward (paradise).

Great interpretations of Qur'an passages there Frank.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 04:37 AM

Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush in the OP. Obviously not all Muslims support this type of action. And honor killings are not prevalent in every Muslim country.

They're not "prevalent" in any country. This is not an everyday thing, here.

But they happen a lot in some Muslim countries and Islam is a contributing factor.I don't understand this desperation to blame Islam for this. There is no evidence that "Islam is a contributing factor."

And since women are most often the victims, here are a few quotes from the Quran regarding women:

A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282 This is a fabrication. I don't know where you got this "information," but here is what 2:282 actually says (Yusuf Ali translation):

2:282 O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah. For it is God that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things.
I'm just not going to bother with the rest. I looked at a couple of others, and they're just as fabricated.

You're obviously just looking for excuses to point the finger at Islam, and you don't seem particularly concerned about accuracy.

frank462

26th July 2007, 04:50 AM

TriangleMan & Cleon,
I have posted these quotes on other forums and you are the first ones to say it is a bad translation. On the other forums, practicing Muslims, did not say these were bad translations. But I am not surprised by your statements. Regardless of the religion, supporters always say the same thing, If the passage from their "holy book" makes them look good, then it is to be taken literally. But if the passage makes them look bad, then it is either a bad translation or it cannot be taken literally and needs interpretation. Of course only their interpretation is the correct one. And I am not just pointing my finger at Islam. I am opposed to all superstitious beliefs.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 04:55 AM

TriangleMan & Cleon,
I have posted these quotes on other forums and you are the first ones to say it is a bad translation.

Not a "bad translation." I can forgive a "bad translation."

These are complete fabrications. The "quotes" you provided are simply false. They do not appear in the Quran.

Don't believe me if you don't want to (and it's obvious that you don't want to). Go to http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ and look them up yourself.

Now, if I had to guess, I'd say you probably got them off of some anti-Islam web site and didn't bother to check them. I've seen similar behavior from anti-Semites, peddling fabricated/massively distorted "quotes" supposedly from the Talmud.

I hope, in the future, you regard such "sources" as suspect.

Mark

26th July 2007, 06:28 AM

Good insight. I think some people are so anxious to point the finger at Islam (or religion in general) that they forget that the real culprit here is sexism and patriarchy; particularly the treatment of women as property.

Cleon, you still have not provided your evidence for this claim.

Ian Osborne

26th July 2007, 06:38 AM

Cleon, you still have not provided your evidence for this claim.

And even if it's true, such attitudes are clearly perpetuated by religion, even if religion wasn't the founding cause.

frank462

26th July 2007, 06:42 AM

TriangleMan & Cleon,
I know what has caused the communication problem and it is my fault. I posted only the meaning of the passages and not the passages themselves. Allow me to clear things up. First of all, here is my source for the Quran:

http://sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/index.htm

As you can see, it is not an anti-Islam site.

Now let's look at each passage:
2:282 O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you in (terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt b tween you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.

The meaning is not ambiguous. A woman's word as a witness is only worth half that of a man.

4:11Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

The meaning is not ambiguous. Males are to inherit twice that of females.

4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

The meaning is not ambiguous. Males may dominate females and may keep them captive.

4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The meaning is not ambiguous. Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women and beat them if you want.

4:98 Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

The meaning is not ambiguous. Women and children are equated with feeble men.

64:14 O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them. And if ye efface and overlook and forgive, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
64:15 Your wealth and your children are only a temptation, whereas Allah! with Him is an immense reward.

The meaning is not ambiguous. Wives and children are only a temptation and should be treated as such.

Again, I apologize for the confusion caused by my unclear posting. But I would also like to repeat what I said earlier. Regardless of the religion, supporters always say the same thing, If the passage from their "holy book" makes them look good, then it is to be taken literally. But if the passage makes them look bad, then it is either a bad translation or it cannot be taken literally and needs interpretation. Of course only their interpretation is the correct one. And I am not just pointing my finger at Islam. I am opposed to all superstitious beliefs.

Mark

26th July 2007, 06:45 AM

Oh, by the way:

"We found a man and a woman in a compromising position along with another man who was drunk and had already committed adultery, and the owner of the house," Haji Jan Gul, a village resident, told the news agency Reuters.

"All four confessed to adultery. We punished them according to our customs and traditions," he said.

Reports said the executions were watched by some 600 people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6721713.stm

I suppose this is just more "Jewish propaganda?"

Here's a nice one:
Iran has been under fire by international human rights groups for executing teenagers in the past, including the 2004 execution of Atefeh Rajabi, a 16-year-old girl convicted of having sex before marriage. Medical reports, not allowed in the court, had stated that she was mentally ill.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controver sy

Or this:
The human rights organisation Amnesty International regularly condemns Saudi Arabia for its executions and for the mockery of a trial which most of the victims receive. The hearings, according to Amnesty, do not accord with the basic norms of international law and are often heard in secret. Visitors to Saudi Arabia have said that women convicted of drugs offences are sometimes rape victims who are judicially murdered to prevent them identifying their assailant.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990723/ai_n14250993

You're right, Cleon. There is nothing wrong with Islamic Law controlling governments. Nothing at all. Let's also have a Christian government here in the US, so we can enjoy these same blessings.

Or am I just being a tool of Jewish Propaganda?

Mark

26th July 2007, 06:47 AM

And even if it's true, such attitudes are clearly perpetuated by religion, even if religion wasn't the founding cause.

Agreed. Christian or Muslim. To deny it is to fly in the face of thousands of years of history.

Leif Roar

26th July 2007, 07:01 AM

And even if it's true, such attitudes are clearly perpetuated by religion, even if religion wasn't the founding cause.

If these attitudes -- the ones that causes honour killings -- are indeed perpetuated by religion, why is it that the geographical occurence of honour killings do not match the geographical spread of the religion(s) in question?

Cleon

26th July 2007, 07:20 AM

Cleon, you still have not provided your evidence for this claim.

You mean the claim that "honor killings" are based on sexism and the treatment of women as property? Are you seriously skeptical, or are you just trying to be difficult?

Mark

26th July 2007, 07:30 AM

You mean the claim that "honor killings" are based on sexism and the treatment of women as property? Are you seriously skeptical, or are you just trying to be difficult?

Both.

On the difficult side, I dislike being held to a different standard from yourself, and that is what you are doing.

On the skeptical side, you seem to be making the claim that sexism and the [bad] treatment of women are independent of religion, especially Islam. I find that claim to be suspect at best, outrageous at worst. Seems to me that religion and women as chattel go hand in hand. My evidence is that the problem is worse in heavily religious countries. What is yours?

Cleon

26th July 2007, 07:45 AM

TriangleMan & Cleon,
I know what has caused the communication problem and it is my fault. I posted only the meaning of the passages and not the passages themselves.

Odd, the way you called them "quotes," then.

The reason it sent up a red flag on my end was that I've read the Quran--in Arabic, even, when I studied the language in college.

As you can see, it is not an anti-Islam site.

Granted. As I said, it was a "guess," based on A) the fact that the "quotes" were complete felgercarb and B) you tried to dodge the issue by calling it a "translation" issue.

(On a side note: Does anyone else get a chuckle out of the fact that the translation is by a man named "Mohammed Marmaduke?")

Now let's look at each passage:

Quranic interpretation is a derail from this thread, but suffice it to say that I think you're getting out of those passages what you want to get out of them. Plus, I note that you've changed your "meanings" slightly.

In my life, I've known Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Nation of Islam types, Muslim men, Muslim women, gay Muslims, Arab Muslims, South Asian Muslims, Black Muslims, White Muslims, Hispanic Muslims, and even Chinese Muslims. (I get around a lot.) Not one has ever believed that "a woman is worth one-half a man," much less interpreted such from the Quran.

But, as you say, sexism is prevalent in every major religion, and there are much more clear-cut examples of sexism in every holy book; the Quran, Torah, Talmud, the Christian Bible, Hindu texts, the works. We could trade them back and forth all day. (Hey! Business idea! "Sexist holy passages" trading cards!)

But getting back to the topic at hand: if Islam was a major (or even "contributing") factor in honor killings, we would expect to see the practice widespread in all Muslim countries; but it seems to be limited to a particular region--particularly the Middle East and South Asia, where it is not limited to the Muslim population by any means--you see it in Muslim, Christian, Druze, Hindu, Yazidi, and various other communities, and it appears to be linked to clan/tribal behavior of the region rather than religious practice.

Earlier in this thread I linked to an article describing how Hamas had arrested several men accused of an "honor killing." This is one of the most radical Islamist movements outside of Al-Qaeda, and they don't tolerate it.

I will say again; if you want to blame it on religion, more power to you--I think it would be difficult to prove that, considering that the practice is older than dirt, but good luck. But if you want to lay the blame (or even part of the blame) on Islam, you're simply factually and historically incorrect.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 08:17 AM

Both.

On the difficult side, I dislike being held to a different standard from yourself, and that is what you are doing.

No, I'm really not. You made a claim about "Muslim culture," and steadfastly refused to back it up beyond strawmen, arguments by incredulity and well-poisoning. You still haven't--and don't think I haven't noticed.

My claim about the practice being rooted in sexism is a logical deduction given the nature of the act itself. To wit (I really don't say that enough):

1. "Honor killing" is the practice of killing women, often brutally, for "dishonoring" their family. (HRW has a pretty decent definition of the practice in this article (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/06/global268.htm).)
2. The "dishonor" involved consists of acts such as infidelity, pre-marital sex, refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, and acts of that nature. Sometimes even for being raped.
3. So the community/village/tribe/clan is punishing the woman for engaging in (sexual) activity without the community's approval.
4. Ergo, the practice is based on the community's belief that women are not allowed to do as they wish, even with their own bodies. Which is sexism.

On the skeptical side, you seem to be making the claim that sexism and the [bad] treatment of women are independent of religion, especially Islam. I find that claim to be suspect at best, outrageous at worst. Seems to me that religion and women as chattel go hand in hand. My evidence is that the problem is worse in heavily religious countries. What is yours?"You seem to be making the claim." You've used that phrase a couple of times now, I'd really appreciate it if you stuck to what I actually say rather than your "interpretations."

What I actually said was "and perhaps it is not as extreme, but even the most secular of societies are not exempt from the issue of sexism." Which is not by any means saying that "sexism and [bad] treatment of women are independent of religion," it's saying that sexism is an issue that goes beyond religion. And yes, I stand by that. There are atheists out there that are sexist, racist, homophobic, the works. Does a strict observation of religious tenets enhance, strengthen, and reinforce sexism? Sure. But that doesn't mean that sexism (or any other form of bigotry) is limited to religious beliefs.

Mark

26th July 2007, 08:47 AM

No, I'm really not. You made a claim about "Muslim culture," and steadfastly refused to back it up beyond strawmen, arguments by incredulity and well-poisoning. You still haven't--and don't think I haven't noticed.

My claim about the practice being rooted in sexism is a logical deduction given the nature of the act itself. To wit (I really don't say that enough):

1. "Honor killing" is the practice of killing women, often brutally, for "dishonoring" their family. (HRW has a pretty decent definition of the practice in this article (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/06/global268.htm).)
2. The "dishonor" involved consists of acts such as infidelity, pre-marital sex, refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, and acts of that nature. Sometimes even for being raped.
3. So the community/village/tribe/clan is punishing the woman for engaging in (sexual) activity without the community's approval.
4. Ergo, the practice is based on the community's belief that women are not allowed to do as they wish, even with their own bodies. Which is sexism.

"You seem to be making the claim." You've used that phrase a couple of times now, I'd really appreciate it if you stuck to what I actually say rather than your "interpretations."

What I actually said was "and perhaps it is not as extreme, but even the most secular of societies are not exempt from the issue of sexism." Which is not by any means saying that "sexism and [bad] treatment of women are independent of religion," it's saying that sexism is an issue that goes beyond religion. And yes, I stand by that. There are atheists out there that are sexist, racist, homophobic, the works. Does a strict observation of religious tenets enhance, strengthen, and reinforce sexism? Sure. But that doesn't mean that sexism (or any other form of bigotry) is limited to religious beliefs.

Yours is a logical deduction and mine is an unsubstantiated claim.

Got it. You win.

frank462

26th July 2007, 09:46 AM

--snip
Quranic interpretation is a derail from this thread, but suffice it to say that I think you're getting out of those passages what you want to get out of them. Plus, I note that you've changed your "meanings" slightly.
In my life, I've known Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, Nation of Islam types, Muslim men, Muslim women, gay Muslims, Arab Muslims, South Asian Muslims, Black Muslims, White Muslims, Hispanic Muslims, and even Chinese Muslims. (I get around a lot.) Not one has ever believed that "a woman is worth one-half a man," much less interpreted such from the Quran.

So I guess none of these people choose to believe any of those passages that clearly state a women is inferior to a man? How nice for you. I guess you just hang out with the nicest people. But apparently there are a lot of other Muslims who do believe those words.

But, as you say, sexism is prevalent in every major religion, and there are much more clear-cut examples of sexism in every holy book; the Quran, Torah, Talmud, the Christian Bible, Hindu texts, the works. We could trade them back and forth all day. (Hey! Business idea! "Sexist holy passages" trading cards!)

But getting back to the topic at hand: if Islam was a major (or even "contributing") factor in honor killings, we would expect to see the practice widespread in all Muslim countries; but it seems to be limited to a particular region--particularly the Middle East and South Asia, where it is not limited to the Muslim population by any means--you see it in Muslim, Christian, Druze, Hindu, Yazidi, and various other communities, and it appears to be linked to clan/tribal behavior of the region rather than religious practice.

Regarding your business proposition "Sexist holy passages", I could always use some extra cash. Maybe it will catch on like Harry Potter.

Back on topic: it has already been established that honor killings were a part of some cultures before Islam. The point is that in certain countries, Islam legitimizes the practice due to its characterization of women. As do other religions in other countries.

Earlier in this thread I linked to an article describing how Hamas had arrested several men accused of an "honor killing." This is one of the most radical Islamist movements outside of Al-Qaeda, and they don't tolerate it.

Why would I care about a press release from Hamas, a terrorist organization that uses cartoon characters to teach young children about suicide bombing? Are you trying to legitimize them?

I will say again; if you want to blame it on religion, more power to you--I think it would be difficult to prove that, considering that the practice is older than dirt, but good luck. But if you want to lay the blame (or even part of the blame) on Islam, you're simply factually and historically incorrect.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But no matter how much you wish it were so, Islam is not blameless in this matter.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 10:00 AM

So I guess none of these people choose to believe any of those passages that clearly state a women is inferior to a man?

They don't "clearly state" that a woman is inferior to a man. That's entirely your interpretation.

Back on topic: it has already been established that honor killings were a part of some cultures before Islam.

And they're a part of some cultures now, many of which are not Islam. You keep glossing over that part.

The point is that in certain countries, Islam legitimizes the practice due to its characterization of women. As do other religions in other countries.

Islam as a whole does not legitimize the practice.

Why would I care about a press release from Hamas, a terrorist organization that uses cartoon characters to teach young children about suicide bombing? Are you trying to legitimize them?

1) Unless there has been a major change in world politics that I have missed, Reuters is not in the habit of issuing press releases for Hamas.
2) You are (deliberately, IMO) missing the point, which is that if a radical Islamist organization does not tolerate "honor killings," it says something about the degree to which the practice is "tolerated" by Islam--which is to say, not very much at all.
3) The bit about "legitimizing" Hamas? That's a really lame attempt at misdirection.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But no matter how much you wish it were so, Islam is not blameless in this matter.

Repetition does not make truth.

Mark

26th July 2007, 10:04 AM

2) You are (deliberately, IMO) missing the point, which is that if a radical Islamist organization does not tolerate "honor killings," it says something about the degree to which the practice is "tolerated" by Islam--which is to say, not very much at all.
.

Please, please, please show evidence for this claim. I have shown some that argue against this point...official executing of rape victims, among others; you have provided nothing to support it other than your opinion.

Jon.

26th July 2007, 10:11 AM

They don't "clearly state" that a woman is inferior to a man. That's entirely your interpretation.

While I generally agree with you on this thread, Cleon, I think you're on shaky ground on this point. At least one of those passages (the one about witnesses) at least implies very strongly that in at least one area (giving testimony), women are inferior: two women's testimony is required in the place of one man's. Why are two women necessary unless they are being treated as inferior?

frank462

26th July 2007, 10:14 AM

--snip
Repetition does not make truth.

I totally agree.:D

Cleon

26th July 2007, 10:38 AM

Please, please, please show evidence for this claim. I have shown some that argue against this point...official executing of rape victims, among others; you have provided nothing to support it other than your opinion.

:rolleyes: Just stop, ok? I get it, you're still irritated because I dared question your characterization of an entire culture as violent.

Just give it a rest, already. Either address what I've said, or move on with your life.

TriangleMan

26th July 2007, 11:37 AM

While I generally agree with you on this thread, Cleon, I think you're on shaky ground on this point. At least one of those passages (the one about witnesses) at least implies very strongly that in at least one area (giving testimony), women are inferior: two women's testimony is required in the place of one man's. Why are two women necessary unless they are being treated as inferior?
One could split hairs about anything in a society that does not treat men and women equally. Since a groom has to pay the bride a sum of money that is hers to keep (hers, not her family), that does imply that she is more valuable than a man?

Anyway, I'm not arguing that women in much of the Muslim world are treated equally -- because I don't think that they are. My bone was with Frank's 'interpretations' of Quranic passages, which were misleading at best, and even his later 'interpretations' still have problems. (for example that men get twice as much inheritance as women, glossing over that it only applies to male children, not brothers or fathers, and with no consideration of why that rule might be that way)

Mark

26th July 2007, 11:39 AM

:rolleyes: Just stop, ok? I get it, you're still irritated because I dared question your characterization of an entire culture as violent.

Just give it a rest, already. Either address what I've said, or move on with your life.

I did address it. Twice. The first you dismissed as Jewish propaganda, the second you ignored totally.

I did not say the entire culture was violent. That is a deliberate distortion. What I said was I am not seeing a lot of objection in the Muslim culture to the violence. And I am not. Are you? Show me.

Just the same as in the US a few years ago when I saw little strong objection from the Christian community over murdering abortion doctors.

My premise is--and has been from the get go--- that when religion (any) gets too much say in government, the results are disastrous. Your premise seems to be that Muslim culture is perfect and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a tool of Jews or both.

Give me a break.

TriangleMan

26th July 2007, 11:46 AM

Now for why what actually interested me about this thread.

Mark, back on page 2 you stated the following:

The Muslim culture is violent. To deny that is to...well, I'll stop short of calling you a liar. Self deluded, maybe.
Herzblut asked you repeatedly for the crime stats. You have evaded and not provided them.

Well, I am asking you now, please provide a link to crime statistics for a sampling of Muslim nations. If you want specifics how about "total crime per 100,000 people" or "rapes per 100,000 people" or "total number of violent crimes reported in year XYZ"? I am very interested in the stats you find, because having lived in the Gulf and visited many countries in the region I have a very good idea of what you will find in those statistics -- and they will not support your assertion that Muslim culture is violent.

Mark

26th July 2007, 11:55 AM

Now for why what actually interested me about this thread.

Mark, back on page 2 you stated the following:

Herzblut asked you repeatedly for the crime stats. You have evaded and not provided them.

Well, I am asking you now, please provide a link to crime statistics for a sampling of Muslim nations. If you want specifics how about "total crime per 100,000 people" or "rapes per 100,000 people" or "total number of violent crimes reported in year XYZ"? I am very interested in the stats you find, because having lived in the Gulf and visited many countries in the region I have a very good idea of what you will find in those statistics -- and they will not support your assertion that Muslim culture is violent.

Really. Who is setting off the car bombs in Iraq?

Who is executing rape victims in Pakistan?

Who is murdering Koreans in Afghanistan?

Who is stoning adulterers in Iran?

Who is murdering their own people in Gaza?

Made this all up, did I?

I say again: read my basic premise, which I restated (yet again) above.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 12:05 PM

The first you dismissed as Jewish propaganda,

That is a flat-out lie.

I did not say the entire culture was violent. That is a deliberate distortion.

Your exact words:

"the Muslims as a group are exceptionally violent" - link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2800734#post2800734) in case you claim I'm making it up.

"The Muslim culture is violent." - again, link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2801278#post2801278) to show that I'm not making it up or pulling it out of context.

In both cases, you declined to include any qualifiers, exceptions, ands, ifs, or buts. (You then went on to poison the well, saying that anyone who didn't agree with your pronouncement was "absurd" and anyone who did so was "self-deluded.")

So no, it wasn't a distortion, deliberate or otherwise. It was your own words.

What I said was I am not seeing a lot of objection in the Muslim culture to the violence. And I am not. Are you? Show me.

And we're back to you demanding that I provide evidence to disprove your claim.

Your premise seems to be that Muslim culture is perfect

Another "seems to be" that doesn't include anything I actually said.

and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a tool of Jews or both.

And again with the (entirely false) accusation of anti-semitism.

You owe me an unqualified apology.

Give me a break.

Indeed.

TriangleMan

26th July 2007, 12:09 PM

Dang, Cleon beat me to it. Mark on page 1 you also stated:
I am not fond of most religions...but the Muslims as a group are exceptionally violent (much like Christians of the 14th century). To deny that is absurd.

Stats Mark, look up some stats. Not "do you deny XYZ violent event happened?", look some stats up for us. Or do you agree that the incidence of violent crimes in many Muslim nations are less than in the West?

Mark

26th July 2007, 12:57 PM

Dang, Cleon beat me to it. Mark on page 1 you also stated:

Stats Mark, look up some stats. Not "do you deny XYZ violent event happened?", look some stats up for us. Or do you agree that the incidence of violent crimes in many Muslim nations are less than in the West?

In today's world, it is the Muslims who are doing the majority of the killing in the name of their religion; I stand by that statement. They are blowing up mosques! If you disagree, fine; please name another religion with more murders or bombings.

But I am not saying the majority of Muslim individuals are violent. I am saying the majority seem to tolerate it; that is a big difference. You disagree? I would love to be shown that I am wrong about that. So show me the outrage! Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King?

It is also true (as I stated) in the past it was the Christians doing the majority of the killing (you two seem to ignore that). I am not anti-Muslim; I am fiercely anti-violence in the name of religion. Unlike you two, I feel that way no matter what religion it is. Christians fire bombing abortion clinics upset me just as much.

Cleon, you dismissed the first article I posted as Israeli (last I checked the Israeli's are Jews) propaganda. Are you now retracting that statement?

Cleon

26th July 2007, 01:02 PM

Cleon, you dismissed the first article I posted as Israeli (last I checked the Israeli's are Jews) propaganda. Are you now retracting that statement?

Israel is a nation-state. Judaism is a religion/culture/ethnicity spread all over the world. I am Jewish. I am not Israeli. "Israeli propaganda" does not mean "Jewish propaganda." That was a deliberate fabrication on your part--unlike my comment about your characterization of Muslim culture, which you now seem to be waffling on.

You are also ignoring the fact that I noted the "article" (propaganda statement, really) is limited to the region around Israel, and does include the most populous Muslim nations.

At no time did I reference "Jewish propaganda." That was a complete fabrication on your part.

Nor did I say anything about being a "tool of the Jews." That, too, was a complete fabrication on your part.

I still await your apology. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.

Mark

26th July 2007, 01:08 PM

Israel is a nation-state. Judaism is a religion/culture/ethnicity spread all over the world. I am Jewish. I am not Israeli. "Israeli propaganda" does not mean "Jewish propaganda." That was a deliberate fabrication on your part--unlike my comment about your characterization of Muslim culture, which you now seem to be waffling on.

You are also ignoring the fact that I noted the "article" (propaganda statement, really) is limited to the region around Israel, and does include the most populous Muslim nations.

At no time did I reference "Jewish propaganda." That was a complete fabrication on your part.

Nor did I say anything about being a "tool of the Jews." That, too, was a complete fabrication on your part.

I still await your apology. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.

I apologize for the "tool of the Jews" comment...that was over the line. The rest is back pedalling on your part.

Cleon

26th July 2007, 01:12 PM

I apologize for the "tool of the Jews" comment...that was over the line. The rest is back pedalling on your part.

*sigh*

Well, at least now I know better than to waste my time with you.

Mark

26th July 2007, 01:16 PM

In fact, I capitulate hand and foot.

Islam is entirely peaceful. Anything that says otherwise is a western media lie.

There are just as many beheadings, mosque bombings, car bombings, execution of rape victims, stonings, religious murders, etc. in the western world as in the Muslim world.

You convinced me. In fact, I think I'll take a stroll down Tehran in a jogging suit. I'll be showered with love!

You are 100% correct and I was 100% wrong.

TriangleMan

26th July 2007, 01:32 PM

But I am not saying the majority of Muslim individuals are violent. I am saying the majority seem to tolerate it; that is a big difference. You disagree? I would love to be shown that I am wrong about that. So show me the outrage! Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King?

Just doing a Google news search, so that it limits to items within the last month, Syafi’i Maarif might be an appropriate candidate in Indonesia.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=10443

Police must protect everyone’s right to express their religious faith. It should have moved against the radical Muslims and stop their hostile actions against the Lembah Karmel Cikanyere, the Carmelite Prayer Centre in Cikanyere Hill, Cianjur Regency (West Java), this according to Syafi’i Maarif’s, who heads the Muhammadiyah (Indonesia’s second largest Muslim organisation). In no uncertain terms he condemned the recent protests by Muslim radicals.

“The [radicals’] rally has tarnished the good image of Islam. As Muslims, we know that Islam is a good, peaceful and loving religion,” he said.

There is no good “reason to use and abuse (Islam) in an effort to legitimate harmful actions against other religious beliefs, to express dislike about them or conduct any unfriendly gestures” to scare them (Catholics), said the eminent Muslim scholar.

I did some further digging and here's an old 2003 article (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962935148.html) where he disagrees with the Iraq War but asserts that the war has nothing to do with religion nor should it be considered an attack by the West against the Islamic World.

gtc

26th July 2007, 06:15 PM

So why does the Quran say that a woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's testimony?

strathmeyer

26th July 2007, 08:07 PM

Why does the Bible say women should submit to their husbands?

gtc

26th July 2007, 08:55 PM

Why does the Bible say women should submit to their husbands?

a)It reflects the generally sexist culture then existant.
b)To reduce conflict in cases where married couples disagree.

One or the other depending on religious view I suspect.

burrahobbit

26th July 2007, 09:50 PM

So why does the Quran say that a woman's testimony is worth only half of a man's testimony?

Just a guess

The quote from the Koran seems to refer to business agreements or contracts. At the time of Mohammed, I would suppose women were not in business or knowlegdable about business. So the greater reliance on male testimony would make sense.

Unless there are other passages in the Koran that reinforce this devaluation of women in other contexts, I would go with this interpretation.

With regard to inheritance, again, judging the inheritance code of a few hundred years ago with the standards of today is nonsensical. In Europe until not very long ago, the eldest son got essentially all the inheritance. Does that mean Christianity was biased against younger sons?

TriangleMan

27th July 2007, 01:14 AM

Just a guess

The quote from the Koran seems to refer to business agreements or contracts. At the time of Mohammed, I would suppose women were not in business or knowlegdable about business. So the greater reliance on male testimony would make sense.

I originally thought so as well but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Muhammed's first wife, Khadijah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid) was a successful businesswoman and trader who's first interactions with Muhammed was by employing him as her agent for a caravan that she owned.

I asked my Arabic teacher about the "woman's testimony is worth half a man's" issue and why it was that way. He said that he didn't really know why, and that over the centuries many have tried to rationalize it in some way or another (woman are more emotional etc.) but he pointed out that under Islam no one can know the mind of God, therefore he doesn't know why that is, only that the Qur'an says it so they obey it.

This "no one can know the mind of God" belief is one of the key reasons why Muslims generally oppose psychics and any other form of divination. In Qatar there are no psychics or astrologers advertising their services (I think it might be illegal).

Ian Osborne

27th July 2007, 02:15 AM

a)It reflects the generally sexist culture then existant.

And then perpetuates it through people using the Bible as a justification for maintaining the status quo.

Mark

27th July 2007, 08:01 AM

Just doing a Google news search, so that it limits to items within the last month, Syafi’i Maarif might be an appropriate candidate in Indonesia.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=10443

I did some further digging and here's an old 2003 article (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962935148.html) where he disagrees with the Iraq War but asserts that the war has nothing to do with religion nor should it be considered an attack by the West against the Islamic World.

That is very, very encouraging.

tkingdoll

27th July 2007, 08:42 AM

I think these murderers were just violent psychos who found a handy in excuse to kill. That goes for the man who did the deed, and the father and uncle who commissioned it.

However, my own experience is that Islam is a shockingly sexist religion. It's easy to enable the abuse, rape and murder of women when they are perceived and expected to live by a different standard in those communities.

TriangleMan

27th July 2007, 09:40 AM

However, my own experience is that Islam is a shockingly sexist religion. It's easy to enable the abuse, rape and murder of women when they are perceived and expected to live by a different standard in those communities.

I'm not going to argue that, in Islamic countries that I have visited there are a wide range of gender equality issues, ranging from societal norms on 'a woman's place' (not unsimilar to the level of women's equality in North America 50+ years ago), to the very oppresive regimes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. In Qatar women were only allowed to drive in 1995 after the old Emir was deposed in a bloodless coup by his more forward-thinking son who immediately removed a lot of the restrictive rules against women. It is stil not perfect here in terms of equlity but at least Qatar holds conferences on Arab women's rights (http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=local_news&month=march2006&file=local_news2006030615139.xml) now.

The Qur'an does have some items in place that are meant to protect women, such as a previously mentioned passage that you need four witnesses to convict a woman of adultery, but as can be seen in places like rural Pakistan this rule is largely ignored. No surprise there that relgious adherents gloss over inconvenient passages of their scripture when it suits them, it is something that happens with all religions.

Despite that I am sometimes more concerned with the plight of women in India, where in many areas it is pretty upfront that women are less valuable then men (selective abortions, female infantcide, wife burning 'accidents' due to dowry disputes)

Mark

27th July 2007, 12:23 PM

...it is something that happens with all religions.

My point all along. Although I am not aware that it happens much with Buddhists and (Philosophical) Taoists.

The western religions look for approval from without, the eastern from within; much harder to BS one's self that way. Not impossible, just harder.

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 04:23 PM

Oh, by the way:
<Pakistan execution anecdote>

Hi Mark, you've chosen "number of executions" as your metric to measure social violence?

OK, let's have a look:

Currently, 89 countries have abolished capital punishment for all offences, 10 for all offences except under special circumstances, and 30 others have not used it for at least 10 years. A total of 68 countries retain it.

The People's Republic of China performed more than 3400 executions in 2004, amounting to more than 90% of executions worldwide.

Iran performed 159 executions in 2004.[3] Texas conducts more executions than any of the other U.S. states, with 370 executions between 1976 and 2006. (Buddhist country!) Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita, with 70 hangings for a population of about 4 million and it also (with Japan) has the lowest murder rate.

Executions are known to have been carried out in the following 25 countries in 2006:

Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, the United States of America, Vietnam, Yemen.[5]

In that year also, 91% of all known executions took place in six countries listed below:[6]

Most Executions carried out in 2006

* 1. China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000)
* 2. Iran (177)
* 3. Pakistan (82)
* 4. Iraq (at least 65)
* 5. Sudan (at least 65)
* 6. United States (53)

In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favor of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.[8] About half the American public says the death penalty isn't imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly,

A recent poll on Aljazeera's website found that 52.7% were in favour of the death penalty being banned, 39.3% against it being banned and 8% undecided.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and ratified by all countries except for the USA and Somalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Please prove your claim that muslim communities are particularly violent using these figures!

Hey! I suggest to use imprisonment rates as a more relevant metric for state violence. You're OK with that? I'm fair and warn you: be very cautious here!

Finally, I was under the opinion that you referred to muslim communities in Europe, since we were talking about a murder in Britain! That's why I requested crime stats! So: can you prove that muslim communities
in European countries are committing significantly more/higher crimes than the non-muslim population? This would compare violence under more or less equal conditions, right?

Herzblut

Jigsaw_Psyche

28th July 2007, 06:26 AM

Except for the rape part. The Quran forbids the killing of a virgin, hence the practice of raping unmarried women before they are executed. You can argue the killing wasn't religiously motivated, but I don't see how you can get around the rape. Ordered by God.

This is completely untrue. There in nowhere in the entire Quran that forbids the killing of a virgin. I have also not come across any ahadith (narrations about Muhammad and his companions) that make such a claim either.

It is Quranically sound to kill virgins. However it is an Islamic belief that those who are virgins go immediately to Jannat (heaven) regardless of what they did on Earth.

Of course this belief is not Islamically-based either, but neither are honour killings, or the belief that a Shahid (martyr) can 'save' his relatives from 'hellfire'; as well as numerous other things.

Honour killings are not Islamically based, neither is this 'don't kill virgins' malarky.

Thanks

-JP

Jigsaw_Psyche

28th July 2007, 06:38 AM

I wonder how much of this bigotry is racially motivated? You can't use racial slurs in polite company anymore, so I wonder if that sort of scumbag just funnels those feelings towards attacking "Muslim extremists", since it is socially acceptable to do so?

I'm telling you, the whole "Muslims as a group are exceptionally violent" comments sound like the sort of thing that Southern racists used to say about black people.

Here's your Number 1 mistake. Islam is not a race. Everytime a factual claim about Islam is brought up; one that can be traced back to islamic texts themselves (which Muslims follow - well the good Muslims) the claimant is labeled as a "bigot" and "racist" in efforts to silence them.

You also state that some Muslims will "condemn" these actions. Sure, there are many who do; but these are the peaceful Muslims. The Quran refers to them as hypocrites, because they call themselves Muslim but are not doing what they were told to do (FIGHT). This is a little off track though; sure they can be peaceful if they want; more power to them.

But you forget about the Islamic doctrine of Al-Taqqiya - This translates to The legal Lie. Fact is, you do not know what a lot of Muslims really think about such actions; because if you are not "with them" then you are against them; they are permitted by their deity (Allah) and their prophet (Muhammad) to tell any lie that they feel will further the cause of Islam.

I'm not saying that ALL Muslims will do this, but many, if they percieve you will not be open to their true thoughts eg. "She deserved it" etc.. will lie and condemn such actions to your face; all the while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" (Allah is greater!) in their heads. You never know where you stand.

Islam as lived by Muhammad was peaceful? Taqqiya.
Muhammad was a good person? (Muslim must follow his example) Taqqiya.
Muslims are perfectly happy to live in a democratic western society? Taqqiya.
Terrorists are not "real Muslims" Taqqiya! (Muhammad even admitted he had been made victorious through terror).

So on and so forth.

So I say again; I do not make the claim that all Muslims do this; just the Good ones who are following the Quran and Muhammad's example. In the politest way possible, I suggest you look into Islam a little bit before you get all offended over people "labeling" this and that.

Thanks

-JP

Jigsaw_Psyche

28th July 2007, 06:57 AM

You have parsed down a heck of a lot doing those Qur'an quotes:
I have (and this is a fragment of a very long passage) And get two witnesses our of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.

Yes that is the quote. However Muhammad said this:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

So the first thing to note there is that Muhammad calls all women deficient in Intelligence! When asked for evidence, he refers to Quran 2:282 as evidence! The reason that the second witness is required in place of one man (so two women) is because women are "deficient in intelligence" and 2:282 elaborates that they have bad memories!

I have debated these ahadith and 2:282 with Muslims before and none has been able to refute my article:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Women_are_Deficient_in_Intelligence
2:282 clearly shows that the testimony of 2 women is equal to one man.

Agreed, male children should inherit twice that of your female children, but the passage mentions shares to the deceased's mother, but not the father, nor does it mention that the deceased's brothers receive a bigger share than sisters. Have you wondered why it was set up that way? (my guess is that because women receive bride money on marriage that their husband has to pay them)

Yes, this inheritance business shows Allah is extremely bad at Maths!

How about: And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify confine them (women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.
You kinda skipped the four witnesses part.

Actually there are a couple of things to note here:

1. This verse was abrogated by the verses of Rajm (stoning) which are absent from today's Quran (because a goat ate them). However this punishment is still practiced for adultery today. The correct punishments for Islam today is that the unmarried (fornicators) get 100 lashes, and the married (adulterers) get stoned to death.

2. 4 Witnesses are required to prove rape. If a woman claims she was raped, she must provide 4 pious male Muslim witnesses (or the equivalent of female, eg. 8 female witnesses if there are no men) who actually SAW the act occur and can testify. If she cannot present such 'proof' then she hs already admitted to having sex outside of marriage and thus faces the appropriate punishment.

3. IF a woman is accused of adultery the above applies; 4 witnesses. However, if her husband is the one accusing her of adultery then he need only swear 4 times by Allah that she did it and this is acceptable evidence. The woman will be punished.

Rather than me quoting this rather long verse I'd like you to quote the whole verse from wherever you got this interpretation from. I think that 4:34 is not quite as harsh as you are interpreting it.

Interesting how do you interpret this verse? Are you reading from (crappy translation) Abdullah Yusuf Ali? You do realise the (bracketed words) are a complete (addition by) the translator and are (not part of nor implied by) the arabic? The fact is that the Quran tells me that if they FEAR dischord (note that word there) they can punish their wife in any of the ways listed.

What is dischord? Its not listed therefore up the discretion of the husband. If he fears she may do something, tell her off, ignore her and beat her. She doesn't even have to do anything.

I can also provide you ahadith where:
(a) Muhammad told women off for complaining their husband were beating them.
(b)Muhammad told men to beat their wives
(c)Muhammad said no punishment for wife-beaters
(d)Muhamamd hit his own wife.

etc... Lemme know.

ETA: The word used in 4:34 is dirabahoona. In context of this verse it means HIT THEM. There is no other possible translation.

Great interpretations of Qur'an passages there Frank.

Yeah; same to you. Please let me know if you'd like additional Quran/Tafseer/ahadith/Sira quotes to back up what I am stating in regards to these verses. I'm sure I can dig up some academic papers, fatwa's (religious rulings) and other things if you wish.

Thanks

-JP

korenyx

28th July 2007, 01:01 PM

I am working on a painting called Seven Could be Dirty Words.
Honor is first because it (like faith) is a good thing that all too often is twisted and turned ugly and murderous.

Kore.

TriangleMan

28th July 2007, 10:35 PM

Yes that is the quote. However Muhammad said this:
I am not sure what this is getting at. My concern with Frank's post was that he was naming a section of the Qur'an, without posting it, then asserting that it meant XYZ. All I did was call him on that, as the passages he noted did not conform to what he said they did. We are not talking about related hadiths & overall islamic jurisprudence, or the overall beliefs of Muslims, just whether the passages said what Frank asserted that they said. Are you saying that Frank's one-line interpretations of those quotes in post #83 were accurate summaries of those passages? It appeared to me and to Cleon that his summaries were not accurate.

One side note:
3. IF a woman is accused of adultery the above applies; 4 witnesses. However, if her husband is the one accusing her of adultery then he need only swear 4 times by Allah that she did it and this is acceptable evidence. The woman will be punished.
For everyone elses benefit I think you are referring to 24:6, which does say that the husband can testify four times in lieu of four witnesses. But doesn't 24:8 state:
But to avert the punishment from her, if she bears witness four times by Allah, that he is telling a lie.
So if the husband testifies four times by Allah that she committed adultery, she can swear four times by Allah that he is lying and the punishment will be averted. Do I have that right?
Interesting how do you interpret this verse? Are you reading from (crappy translation) Abdullah Yusuf Ali?
Nope, the translators are Dr. Muhammed Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan, fifteenth revised edition, 1996. Published by Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh.

You do realise the (bracketed words) are a complete (addition by) the translator and are (not part of nor implied by) the arabic? The fact is that the Quran tells me that if they FEAR dischord (note that word there) they can punish their wife in any of the ways listed.

What is dischord? Its not listed therefore up the discretion of the husband. If he fears she may do something, tell her off, ignore her and beat her. She doesn't even have to do anything.

In regards to 4:34 I said that I did not think that the passage was as harsh as Frank was implying. Here's why: in the translation that I have 4:34 states (leaving out any bracketed info added for clarity by the translator):

4:34Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard. As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means. Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

So yes my translation of 4:34 says 'beat', which is even harsher than 'hit'. But let's see the passage with the translator's clarifications:
4:34Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity and their husband's property). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

So whose interpretation should I go with: Frank's, or Drs. Al-Hilali and Khan?
Was I therefore in error to state that I didn't think that the passage was as harsh as Frank implied?
I can also provide you ahadith
This is about whether Frank's summaries of Quranic passages were accurate.

Please let me know if you'd like additional Quran/Tafseer/ahadith/Sira quotes to back up what I am stating in regards to these verses. I'm sure I can dig up some academic papers, fatwa's (religious rulings) and other things if you wish.
Thanks, that is kind of you to offer. I will note that for the future.

Jigsaw_Psyche

29th July 2007, 04:03 AM

Hello TriangleMan; nice to meet you! My apologies; I think I had misunderstood what you were getting at; although Frank's 'one-liners' were not a direct quote from the Quran, I believe he got most of his claims right regarding the Quran. I just jumped in with some clarification (to my own knowledge). My apologies if you took offence.

Regarding some of the information I provided, I note that someone in this thread asked why the second female is required in place of one male witness and I note that you said you asked your teacher and he did not know?

I was merely jumping in to provide the knowledge that I have. Although I do not agree with you that 4:34 is 'not as harsh' I can see your point of view.

Thanks!

-JP

I am not sure what this is getting at. My concern with Frank's post was that he was naming a section of the Qur'an, without posting it, then asserting that it meant XYZ. All I did was call him on that, as the passages he noted did not conform to what he said they did. We are not talking about related hadiths & overall islamic jurisprudence, or the overall beliefs of Muslims, just whether the passages said what Frank asserted that they said. Are you saying that Frank's one-line interpretations of those quotes in post #83 were accurate summaries of those passages? It appeared to me and to Cleon that his summaries were not accurate.

One side note:

For everyone elses benefit I think you are referring to 24:6, which does say that the husband can testify four times in lieu of four witnesses. But doesn't 24:8 state:
But to avert the punishment from her, if she bears witness four times by Allah, that he is telling a lie.
So if the husband testifies four times by Allah that she committed adultery, she can swear four times by Allah that he is lying and the punishment will be averted. Do I have that right?

Nope, the translators are Dr. Muhammed Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan, fifteenth revised edition, 1996. Published by Darussalam Publishers, Riyadh.

In regards to 4:34 I said that I did not think that the passage was as harsh as Frank was implying. Here's why: in the translation that I have 4:34 states (leaving out any bracketed info added for clarity by the translator):

So yes my translation of 4:34 says 'beat', which is even harsher than 'hit'. But let's see the passage with the translator's clarifications:

So whose interpretation should I go with: Frank's, or Drs. Al-Hilali and Khan?
Was I therefore in error to state that I didn't think that the passage was as harsh as Frank implied?

This is about whether Frank's summaries of Quranic passages were accurate.

Thanks, that is kind of you to offer. I will note that for the future.

TriangleMan

29th July 2007, 05:10 AM

Jigsaw_Psyche

29th July 2007, 05:23 AM

No problem, I was just miffed at what I felt were summaries of Qur'an passages that appeared to have an element of bias to support a point of view.

My understanding of the Quran and its passages are drawn from the relevant sahih ahadith; ie. those that tell of the revelational situation of the ahadith; and those where tafseer is given. I also read through Tafseer such as Maudaudi and Kathir etc.. in order to get an understanding of what the verse means (as they provide hadith I do not have access to).

For the record I am not of the view that the Qur'an and related jurisprudence supports gender-equality, and that women's rights are real issues in Islamic nations to various degrees, whether it be the restictions placed on women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to the tribal/Quran'ic blends that cause abuse of women in rural Pakistan. Some nations are better than others though.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Yes, but though he was a devout man he was an Arabic teacher as opposed to an Islamic teacher. He was honest enough to admit that he didn't know why it said that, and that others usually said things like women were more emotional. Didn't say anything about the intellegence though, as noted in the hadith that you quoted. Perhaps my Arabic teacher did not have had in-depth knowledge of the hadiths? Unfortunately I won't be able to find out; he was Iraqi and has since gone back to Iraq.

ah well. It is perfectly okay; at least he was honest ;) Perhaps he had a more reformist view of Islam? I know there are the strict fundamenstalists that adhere strictly to the Quran and ahadith without changes and those who wish to reform. I hope the reformists win.

Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but aren't hadiths something that acceptance depends on the school of jurisprudence? That some schools of Islamic thought may accept a certain hadith while others reject it?

Yes this is mostly true. There are different sects; Sunni accept the majority of ahadith, Shia have their own auxillary books, Quran-only's reject ALL but the Quran etc...

However when talking about ahadith, there are Sahih collections (Sahih - Genuine) that I quote out of. These are accepted by the majority of Muslims; I usually confine myself to quoting Mutawatir narrations (Mutawatir - Corroborated by seperate Isnads (chains of narrators)).

It is quite difficult for the Quran-only Muslims to follow Muhammad's example (whcih the Quran tells them to do) if they reject the evidence (the ahadith). The ahadith are the only record of Muhammad's life, his words and his actions. This is why the books are so important.

But yes, there are different schools of belief that would prevent some of them from accepting the ahadith; Bukhari and Muslim (as I understand) are accepted by Sunni and Shia but not Quran-only Muslims.

-JP