1. Why do the overwhelming majority of honor killings occur in Muslim-dominated areas? 2. The influence of Islam and it's focus on virginity is no doubt a major factor in these honor killings. 3. The strict moral code and harsh punishments associated with Islam are major factors in the honor killings. Religion may not explicitly state that a father should murder his non-virgin daughter, but you can connect the dots and see why these Muslims are doing it. Regilion is a major influencer in the process. How can you deny that?
I don't support the death penalty because it's prescribed as a capital punishment in Islam, but rather because it makes a lot of sense to me. I respect your views on it, but I completely disagree with you on this one. I will agree to disagree...
Ok, but understand I do consider Islam a violent religion because of this. And I do think if the Koran did completely forbid killing, cultures connected with Islam would not be as violent. I do think there is a connection.
Actually, like I said in an earlier thread, for adultery to be punishable by death, under Islamic law, 4 witnesses have to be present during the actual penetration. Obviously, you can see how that is almost close to impossible. Furthermore, there is a hadith in which a woman committed adultery and came to Muhammad to ask for her punishment. He turned his face in the other direction and ignored her. This continued for 3 days. The point being that rules are in place for the society but it is intended that a crime be between god and man. Under Islamic law, if a person is convicted for murder, and the family of the victim obliges, blood money can be given rather than capital punishment. This is an extremely progressive concept for its time, in a society where a murder was avenged by murder of a person from the other tribe. If one examines the political and historical context of the birth of Islam, it is completely historically inaccurate to assert that Islam is a violent religion. Modern day practice of these concepts may be considered violent, and that is the problem with fundamentalism, but Islam itself is not violent. One might say that Jesus never retaliated or took the sword, but Jesus was simply a spiritual leader. He was not a political leader like Muhammad. The earliest Muslims had to take the sword or be annihilated by the surrounding Pagans, Jews, Persian Empire, and Roman Empire. Muhammad himself said "to pray that you never have to engage in warfare." It is no coincidence that the first thing he did upon migration was conducting a peace treaty between the Jews and Arabs of Medina who had been in constant civil warfare. It is no coincidence that upon the conquest of Mecca, not a single life was taken, entering into the city of the very people who had tortured and persecuted his followers for years. Present day Muslims need to look at this as an example now in a world with the UN and Geneva conventions. However, to say that Islam was violent in origin is simply historically inaccurate.
Ok, So it is ok in this religion to kill people for adultry, even though it is hard to meet the requirements. And this is GODLY behaviour? I feel the world has lost it's common sense....and religion is the root of that loss. And the more I hear or read about the Muslim faith, and how it is supposedly peaceful but with exceptions like Cabbage noted, the more I think it is just plain out of wack. So, it is OK to kill someone in GODS name as long as it meets conditions written down centuries ago to control the ignorant masses. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT
Obviously religion is an influence on culture but with major religions like Islam it influences it in different ways. For instance ostensibly both the US and Norway are arguably Christian cultures yet in one the death penalty is allowed and widely supported while in the other it is illegal and considered barbaric. Just because the death penalty is tolerated in the US then would it be right for a death penalty opponent to say that Christianity is barbaric? It wouldn't because obviously there are Christian cultures that don't agree with the death penalty. In the same way that honor killings take place in Islamic countries there are also many Islamic countries that don't so in the same way it would be wrong to presume to that just because it takes place in some Islamic countries it is sanctioned or encouraged by Islam. Though I'm not a Muslim and haven't read the Qu'ran I don't know whether the Qu'ran allows it, encourages it, or explicitly forbids it. Other Muslims here have said it does and I would accept their opinion on it more than a Non-Muslims.
psh.. wrong Islam doesnt condone these actions and there are plenty of Muslim countries that dont either.
1. because people overvalue their honor and social status... and they are willing to kill to keep that at a high level. 2. there is no influence on virginity in islam. in islam it says if you find that your wife is not a virgin after your first night with her, you have no right to question her on her past. there is the part about not being involved with men before marriage, yes. and i believe thats something that most alll cultures and religions forbids. pre marital sex isnt allowed in hinduism, judaism, christianity, heck theres still a law in Virginia that forbids two members of the opposite sex from staying in the same house if they arent married. 3. you just jumped and leaped on this one. i dont see how you can make the assumption. Islam also has strict moral codes and harsh punishments for terrorism, and for killing of innocents, yet corrupt people still seem to take that path.
if the quran forbid killing then where is the self defense? it would then be ok for one to kill a muslim, but a muslim cant kill back? you cant take one part of a religion and take the general connection and link it to another crime. its like saying, if christianity forbid sex, cultures connected with christianity wouldnt commit rape. obviously there is a connection, but not a very good one.
You see this is just FRICKEN STUPID, and why I find Islam VERY hard to take seriously. Does the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" mean anything to you? If a Muslim is killed, they should find out who did it, take them to court and let the law of the land handle it. That is the CIVILIZED way of doing things. Or are you saying the Crusaders had it right all along? DD
I FREAKIN AGREE WITH YOUR WAY find out who did it and take them to court. thats the islamic way too, but then the death penalty or w/e is prescribed in islam, and some people are using the use of death penalty in islam to point it out to be some sort of genocide supporting religion... You cant have someone in court if they arent from your country, tribe, etc etc.
What are you talking about? You took a quote about killing in self-defense and turned it into this? If a person is killing your family, you believe that the quran should say you should just sit and watch? Is this what you would do? Or if a person is trying to kill you, you're saying you should just let them? That's what "forbidding killing" would be saying, and what the section you quoted was talking about.
I think more or less, this became a thread that was directed at someone, but ended up taking shots at a group of people instead. Instead of letting things die, a ridiculous thread is started to bring up a previous ridiculous thread (imo). Instead of making the point against whomever did you wrong, the thread, as ironic as its purpose, took a swipe at a bunch of other people. It has a lot of similarity of world politics right now. The US was the victim of a terrorist attack and most of the world was somewhat sentimental of the situation. (Most = the people, although some of the governments might have their laughs, but I tend to believe that most people do not condone this, whatever the religion). In some sort of retaliation, another "target" was hit and the anti-American politics arose once again. When that other thread came up, I stayed out of it because I don't believe that the religion is to blame. How a group of people used the religion for their own purposes (a la David Koresh) is very comparable to Hitler using his speech skills to gain the support of his people. Religion was USED in that manner, and should not be blamed unless that's what it preaches. But instead of making the necessary statements and let the anti-sentiments act like fools, a thread such as this was used in retaliation. Two things come of this. Both sides seem like jokes now in the argument, and the situation flares up again. Nice.
I took Adeels point, where he said that killing someone is OK under Islamic law as retaliation. Is that not what he was talking about? DD
I'm sorry DD but your argument is ridiculous. Self-Defense isn't just an Islamic concept but practically a universal concept. Even in much of Buddhism one would recognize killing someone in self-defense or even in defense of others. I don't think anyone will disagree with the need for courts and law enforcement but if someone is attacking you with a lethal weapon and you kill them you won't be tried for murder.
i'm sorry since I missed Major's response on the same subject. Adeel did say Self-Defense which is something much difference than "Vigilantism" which is what you are thinking of. I don't know whether Vigilantism is justified in the Qu'ran but I believe there is a debate whether it is justified Biblically since "an Eye for an Eye" would seem to justify that.
Had a nice break. I don't believe 'Vigilantism' is right Biblically. The New Testament says not to take revenge, and to work in obedience to the governing authorities. It teaches that rulers have a God given responsibility to punish criminals. Romans 12:17-21 and 13:1-5; (Chapt.12) 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Chapt.13) 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
