Qandeel Baloch murder highlights how honour killings are still a deep menace affecting Pakistan soci

There is no such thing as personal opinion in "God's Law" according to most Muslims. The huge majority of Muslims today do not believe it ok to interpret the Quran for themselves because it's too complicated and only a cleric can do it. THAT is a problem that has led to many problems IMO.

It is certainly a cultural problem, but it's not a problem for the reasons you list. Almost all Muslims cannot reform these things, nor can they reform their government. They have no input into what their governments do, and because of that they do not have or seek responsibility for the actions of their government. This is not to say they don't want it.

Also - and I strongly advise against this - if this is a problem the logical solution is to teach people more Islam since Islam does not condone the behavior. Is that what you want?

I have no evidence because sadly Pew and the like are no interested in demonstrating this in the same way they do for Muslims.

Speak to someone from Newark or West Englewood and ask them if the bottom income 10% of its population think it's sometimes justified to shoot someone for their money.

It's not a big deal to me only because I understand how Muslims interpret the Quran. To them, God states things that we may not understand while we are alive. They believe that there is a supernatural wisdom associated with the Quranic and other texts, the source of which is an entity that has seen all the past and all the future.

To them, God is not telling them to commit honor killings. And he is not, and there is no such text. What they believe is that a lot of "experts" (lol) have deciphered from reading all the texts and analyzing it and discussing it in panels that a family member killing another for "honor" is not a crime ON JUDGEMENT DAY. Again, they are wrong. There is no text that says this, otherwise ATW would have it plastered all over here from his bookmarked islamophobic websites.

These people are NOT saying that if it were a representative independent democracy, they would elect representatives who would enact a law stating that you can get away scotch free killing your sister for posting a picture you don't like. If that were true, it would shock me too. It would take a political wahhabist to get that done. That's the extreme of the extreme.

And as far as reform goes, it worked in my country because the government did it. No one else did it. No one called for it. No one publicly complained about it. The same people who people criticize for everything else, they unilaterally made that decision. No one was asked. Even if everyone was against it, that was going to happen. Considering they employ 60% of the citizens, they were already able to implement it seamlessly for a huge part of the population. In fact, it's private foreign entities now that are under pressure to keep up and stop paying women less for the same job.

No one in this region is thinking about this. For you it may seem high priority but take a quick look again at the countries listed. It really pains me to say this, but just for context the people in those countries do not have high on their priority list an issue that results in ~5,000 total deaths globally per year, a good portion of which is not by Muslims. It is so so low on their priority list. People in my country have the luxury of money and time and extremist preachers are rejected/deported swiftly and regularly so they DID have time, money and info to re-think and reconsider their position on this cultural phenomenon instead of just accepting it as a historic thing. Pew did not bother including us or any gulf country - where honor killings were first rampant - in this study and that's a major red flag. They didn't bother formulating the questions correctly, playing in the vague grey area called "permissible". Maybe they didn't know how grey an area that is in Islamic jurisprudence.

For me, I'm certain that these figures are not representative of Muslim peoples intentions, and I'm certain that if they were living a better life even their share of that 5,000 per year would disappear. Again, it's a problem, but it's not the sensational one the media makes it out to be, and it's not a deep rooted thing either. Just requires freedom, access to information and a bit of money if you want to fix it long term without it ever coming back, or forced imposed top-down action if you want to fix it short term.

The other thing you have to understand is, this region was under a death blanket for decades. My wife's dad was a starving pearl diver who had never seen a car or a fridge, owned 1 shirt and didn't know if he would die from eating nothing but dry fish. His daughter is going to Mars on a space mission. No one but the people of this region can possibly understand the mind ****ing cultural mutation that results from that, maybe no one in history. Certainly, one poorly constructed, borderline racist, foreign poll conducted by telephone is not going to inform my opinion much. I know that if I poll the poorest and most religious pockets of Europe or southern America, I will find that half of them will respond with some crazy violent ****. Hell, half of them are saying it's permissible for police to shoot those people. That's an honor killing if I ever saw one.

 

nah clueless, tell him the stuff you really know...like rich Dictator and dragons ...more entertaining

 

Bro, time to get back to work. Those camels aren't going to drink their own blessed piss.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mZDU3tTYVaA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You should be taking notes bro so that you understand why half of your country is in my country every week.

 

Is this the Rich Dictator (never heard of poor Dictator but anyhow), did he ask you to milk the camel's pee!, and where is the Dragon !

 

Wtf.. Vomit

 

Not sure why Mullas thinks these guys needed this drugs preparation step before they send them to Syria to protect Asad from the people of Syria

 

Are u planning to stalk them..!

 

It is sad to hear that this still exist and will probably exist in my lifetime. On another note was the brother adopted bc they look nothing alike.

 

I know this has been talked about. But I want to make this question clear.

Where the **** are Western feminists on this one?

 

"..........The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That’s nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war.

Women are much more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence with 85 percent of domestic abuse victims being women and 15 percent men. Too many women have been held captive by domestic violence — whether through physical abuse, financial abuse, emotional abuse or a combination of all three.

We are inundated with news stories about domestic violence , from athletes beating their significant others in public elevators or in their own homes to celebrities publicly abusing their girlfriends. This problem is not one that will go away quickly or quietly.

As Domestic Violence Awareness Month comes to an end, discussions about intimate partner abuse and its horrible repercussions should not. In an attempt to illustrate the gravity of abuse all genders (but largely women) face in the U.S., we rounded up 30 statistics on domestic violence.

Domestic violence is not a singular incident, it’s an insidious problem deeply rooted in our culture — and these numbers prove that.

3

The number of women murdered every day by a current or former male partner in the U.S.

38,028,000

The number of women who have experienced physical intimate partner violence in their lifetimes.
.........etc, I think you get it ugly even here..."

 

Wild claims of Christians killing people were made... he asked for examples and you have provided none.

Where are the examples of the wild claims of Christians killing like this. Where is the poll that shows a large percentage of Christians in ANY country would ok with barbaric acts like this?

I understand that cml750 is an easy target but I still call BS on the original post he replied to.

This is a Islamic problem created by Islamic laws and it is NOT a problem that Christians have.

 

Look.

Why is everyone talking about things other than what is actually happening here.

Sharia law= inherently inhumane and sexist.

Sharia law= an Islamic phenomenon

Therefore those who practice it are likely to be perpetrators of sexist crimes.

Real, horrifying, sexism based on a core set of cultural values.

So. Why are we talking about Christians? Why are the same lame arguments used to ignore a simple truth?

A:"This basket of fruits has a disproportionately large amount of rotten apples."
B" But not all apples are bad. Not all apples in this basket are bad."
A: "I never said that..."
B: "Look at those rotten pears in the basket! Why don't you pick on them? You're a fruit-ist"
A: "No...I'm saying we need to do something about these bad apples here."
B: "That's discrimination."
A: "Well, yes...but what do you suppose we do about these apples?"
B: "Rotten fruits is a part of this fruit basket. The apples have just a place in this basket as you Mr. Pear."
A: "But I'm a good pear."
B: "Your argument is idiotic. IDIOT. BIGOT"

...

A: "Why?...Oh right, I forget. You're a **** eating fly."

 

You do get a sense of how muslims justify the barbaric acts that happen in their community. That is something civilized society doesn't stand for and cracks down on, whereas Islam willingly contributes to practices such as negligence, baacha bazi, honor killings, homo killings etc.

That's the thing to take away from these articles ... if you ever want the hate to stop.

 

If this is true and most Muslims are simply unwilling to use their own minds in answering basic moral questions, that is a huge, fundamental problem. Moral questions like "Is it ever OK to kill a family member because they committed adultery" should be a pretty easy one to answer.

In any case, the fact that so many Muslim clerics who are supposed to be scholars in interpreting the meaning of sacred Islamic texts also teach that "honor killings" are sometimes justified is just disgraceful.

This is such a defeatist attitude. Why should we expect changes at the government level where officials are elected (as is the case in Pakistan), if there is no political will coming from the people?

This seems to me like you're contradicting yourself. You are saying the problem is that Muslim clerics, the assumed teachers, are telling them that honor killings are sometimes justified. So how is teaching them more about Islam a solution?

If there's a solution, it is that people should be encouraged to question religious doctrine when it conflicts with their innate, moral instincts of right and wrong and not assume the moral authority of clerics.

If it turned out that even 10% of people in those cities believed that, then that would be worthy of discussion.

Here, we're talking about not just 10% of people in a few select cities, but ~30+% over a cross section of Muslim countries -- tens if not hundreds of millions of people. And you think its not worthy of discussion. Why? Because it makes Muslims look bad and that's unfair?

Maybe you're using the term "not a big deal" to mean "not surprising". Fine, its not surprising. That doesn't mean its not important, for the sake of thousands that are killed each year as a result of such thinking.

Well, you're setting the bar pretty low if that's the defense. Yes, I understand that they don't believe that its always permitted to kill your sister if she does something you disapprove of. Good for them for not being complete psychopaths, I guess?

I don't know the situation in UAE, obviously, so I can only take your word for it. What specifically was the reform enacted with respect to honor killings?

My opinion is that this issue runs deeper than the deaths, as bad as that is. It signifies a cultural backwardness where the respondents are so shackled by religious dogma that they can't judge for themselves right and wrong for really basic moral questions. If you want to blame that on various factors prevalent in most Muslim societies rather than Islam by itself, fine. But I don't see how the religion itself can be discounted as a factor, when there is a clear relationship between people who think honor killings can be justified and people who want Sharia to be the law of the land.

You're claiming here that Pew intentionally filtered out some Gulf states to skew the results and make Muslims look bad. Am I correct that this is your contention? And also that if they included the missing Gulf states that somehow the numbers would look "better" on average?

The full report is here:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Quoting from the preface:

[rquoter]
This report examines the social and political views of Muslims around the world. It is based on public opinion surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center between 2008 and 2012 in a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Together, the surveys involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects,covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims except for a handful (including China, India, Saudi Arabia and Syria) where political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.
[/rquoter]

Note that the populations of the missing Gulf states (other than Saudi Arabia) are all under 10 million (at least as of the time the data was collected).

Regarding the phrasing of the question, which you think was done incorrectly and was too vague, here it is exactly:

[rquoter]Some people think that if a woman engages in premarital sex or adultery it is justified for family members to end her life in order to protect the family honor. Do you personally feel that this practice is:

choices: often justified, sometimes justified, rarely justified, never justified, don't know/refuse to answer.[/rquoter]

I'm curious what you find vague about it, and what you think would be a better way to phrase it?

Finally, this is how the report summarizes the responses to the honor killings question in the Executive Summary:

[rquoter]
In most countries where a question about so-called “honor” killings was asked, majorities of Muslims say such killings are never justified. Only in two countries – Afghanistan and Iraq – do majorities condone extra-judicial executions of women who allegedly have shamed their families by engaging in premarital sex or adultery.
[/rquoter]

If they had such an anti-Muslim bias, as you apparently believe, they would have certainly slanted the final summary in a much more negative way.

Alright.

 

You're preaching to the choir here.

Because political will is illegal and more punishable than you can ever imagine, unless it happens to align with what is going to happen anyway.

They are either electing representatives or they're not. To me they're not, so I don't know why anyone would have any expectations from them.

Because the clerics are not always teaching Islam, and that's because the clerics are hand picked not by people.

Those clerics will tell you that questioning things on your own is like inviting the devil into your morals. You're not fit to question, you should ask a cleric.

It's not worthy of FURTHER discussion. We know the problem and the answer. What's there to discuss? The next step needed is for people to have access to reform their institutions or, again, for it to be imposed by the authorities. Shall we talk about the various factors that stand in the way of that?

Of course, I was very careful not to demean the loss of life. But again this is minuscule compared to what the polled people are facing in their lives. They are really living in a situation where there are many higher fatality issues on their agenda. Honor killings won't be at the top of their list just because Rupert Murdoch willed it. There's hunger, starvation, bombs raining down, countries being wiped off the earth, radiation poisoning, torture, lack of basic health care, etc.

Well, we're talking about a poll that makes them look like psychopaths. So I'm saying they're not psychopaths. That's not the moral bar I would set for the region, it's just the discussion at hand.

Nothing in specific. It just vanished with access to education, health, wealth and hence dreams/goals.

Again, I agree with the deeper issue.

I think I've stated several times there's no such thing as a single sharia. It's not like civil or common law or a policy book with a set of agreed upon principles. Even as a former Muslim, I can't derive anything from people saying they want sharia enacted. Some people's sharia means honor killings. Other people's sharia means tolerance for the LGBT community. Sharia is just the interpretation of the texts that a person accepts from their clerics. There are as many versions of sharia as there are clerics.

They either screwed up or skewed up. There are 30-40 million Muslims in the gulf region and today they live in the most powerful muslim majority countries in the world. It seems rather arbitrary that the line they set excluded the birthplace of Islam and prior to Islam the birthplace of honor killings.

This is worse than I thought. Same thing as use of permissible. Something is justified on judgement day in the way Muslims think.

How did this question turn into permissible/not with the answers so different here?

I don't THINK they have an intentional anti Muslim bias. I think it's poorly constructed and thus ended up biased. Pew is usually good about these things, maybe one of the best. What they've said here is not positive in any way btw. As we both have said, even 1 is too many, and even 10% of a population willing to personally engage in the action is an absurdly high amount.

 

Honestly, I don't care what muslims do in muslim countries. It's none of my businnes. Just don't bring that here.

 

Its not arbitrary to look at countries with large Muslim populations. That's a reasonable choice to make, and they only have so many resources. As for not including Saudi Arabia, I accept their explanation given. Its an unfortunate fact that access is not equal in all countries.

What sort of responses would you expect from populations in the smaller Gulf States?

It means the same thing, at least in American English. Anyway, the questions were asked in the languages used by the people, not English, so scrutinizing the English word choice is probably a waste of time.

I'm saying it is far less negative than it could have been, and indicative of them not setting out with an agenda to make Muslims look bad. I think we agree at least on that.

 

Do you care about what we do in the Middle East? Sticking our nose in places it doesn't belong for decades. All for oil and Israel.

I feel helpless in what is happening all over the world.