Honor Killings

[839311]

But it is black and white: kill or not. My intentions are neither good nor bad, they are what they are. I don't kill. And your contention was that economics were the deciding factor, virtue wise

Economics was only one of the two main reasons. The other one is that I think killing them is doing them a favor. A wretched, miserable, haunted, perhaps hideously corrupted and evil life is something I don't want anyone to experience.

Aside from that, your saying it is black and white. Kill or not. Well, if you don't kill them, it could potentially cost a million dollars. What if instead of paying the million dollars for the murderer we invest in schools, hospitals, welfare, worker training programs - all of which would help a lot of people. Some peoples lives might be saved. Other people would be able to better support their families, maybe afford to send their kids to university. Not so white and black anymore, is it? Economics is a much more important aspect of the problem than you might realize. You can change a lot of lives with a million bucks, maybe even save some lives.

So if it is such a mercy, why provide it?

Because mercy is a virtue. The murderer may be a monster, but we aren't. Torturing the murderer by keeping him alive so that the misery, pain and guilt he has inside cause him massive suffering is evil.

You must agree that the motive of the mercy killing of a killer by those who already advocate killing the killer sounds a mite suspicious.

I don't understand what you said here.

 

[crocusj]

So you think it is okay, for a husband to kill his wife, or father killing his daughter, in misguided honor of family's reputation or that of religion's image?

If these sort of people (husbands, fathers, uncles, brothers, male cousins) think they are above the law. They think they can do anything to the women or daughters in their families.

As father or husband, they are supposed to love and protect the women or children in their lives. They should have to face the consequences of killing they supposed to love and protect. It is not about cultures, they are nothing more than patriarchal sociopaths. They can't be treated.

If that meant death sentence for these people in the court of law, then so be it. Alas, Australia have no death sentence.

Of course I don't think it is ok and for precisely the same reason that I cannot advocate a death penalty. I think killing is wrong, this belief does not change due to circumstances.

 

[crocusj]

Economics was only one of the two main reasons. The other one is that I think killing them is doing them a favor. A wretched, miserable, haunted, perhaps hideously corrupted and evil life is something I don't want anyone to experience.

Aside from that, your saying it is black and white. Kill or not. Well, if you don't kill them, it could potentially cost a million dollars. What if instead of paying the million dollars for the murderer we invest in schools, hospitals, welfare, worker training programs - all of which would help a lot of people. Some peoples lives might be saved. Other people would be able to better support their families, maybe afford to send their kids to university. Not so white and black anymore, is it? Economics is a much more important aspect of the problem than you might realize. You can change a lot of lives with a million bucks, maybe even save some lives.

I'm sorry but it is black and white for me. Kill or not. If the only source of this economic windfall that we, as a society, can find to finance the welfare that is required to better lives comes from the death of others then we are doing something seriously wrong with our budgets and perhaps our priorities. There is more than one Peter to rob to pay Paul.

Because mercy is a virtue. The murderer may be a monster, but we aren't. Torturing the murderer by keeping him alive so that the misery, pain and guilt he has inside cause him massive suffering is evil.

Mercy may well be a virtue but perhaps it should be measured by the response of those to which is applied as a bit of an indicator of just how merciful it actually is.

I don't understand what you said here

I mean that when someone has decided that they already want another dead that the idea of it being for the victims own good sounds decidedly dodgy. My argument is simplistic: if we think killing is wrong then we should not do it. I realise that not everyone thinks this way.

 

[Looncall]

A couple of things:

I suspect that honour killings are a natural result of religions and societies that are enthusiastic about the idea of purity. Other horrors, such as female genital mutilation, are also a result of this concern with purity. It devalues the humanity of persons altogether.

Another reason for not having the death penalty is that one cannot be sure that the system will always correctly identify perpetrators. The constant appearance of wrongful conviction cases bears this out. Gandalf, in the Lord of the Rings: "And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

 

[ankarali]

any relation with islam, it is stupidity,

 

[Looncall]

any relation with islam, it is stupidity,

I do not agree. At the very least, one can certainly say that islam is ineffective in preventing honour killings, since they are prevalent in enthusiastically muslim societies.

 

[F0uad]

I do not agree. At the very least, one can certainly say that islam is ineffective in preventing honour killings, since they are prevalent in enthusiastically muslim societies.

Islam is scriptural based there is no Honour-killing in the Quran mentioned it condemns it yet, there is a other book that does mention it and supports it (religious book)

 

[beenie]

There is actually a religious scripture out there that allows and promotes honor-killings but i am pretty sure if i am going to mention the book i would be attacked on all fronts.

Islam is scriptural based there is no Honour-killing in the Quran mentioned it condemns it yet, there is a other book that does mention it and supports it (religious book)

Could you please disclose this religious book? You've mentioned it a couple of times now, so post it.

 

[Looncall]

Islam is scriptural based there is no Honour-killing in the Quran mentioned it condemns it yet, there is a other book that does mention it and supports it (religious book)

What matters is what people do. No matter what may be in islamic scripture, if its adherents behave like barbarians, at the least the scripture is ineffective: at the worst it is noxious.

Barbaric behaviour need not be prescribed in the quran to be the fault of the quran. If attitudes, such as a morbid concern with purity, that promote barbaric behaviour are prescribed, the scripture is still at fault.

 

[F0uad]

Could you please disclose this religious book? You've mentioned it a couple of times now, so post it.

I did before see the previous post i even quoted it

 

[beenie]

I did before see the previous post i even quoted it

Missed that, sorry.

 

[F0uad]

What matters is what people do. No matter what may be in islamic scripture, if its adherents behave like barbarians, at the least the scripture is ineffective: at the worst it is noxious.

Barbaric behaviour need not be prescribed in the quran to be the fault of the quran. If attitudes, such as a morbid concern with purity, that promote barbaric behaviour are prescribed, the scripture is still at fault.

So if a book goes against Barbaric teachings it not to mention in here?
Honour-killing is forbidden in the Quran so therefore in islam, if someone practices something differently like ''Honour-killing'' we can say that he or she is not follow Islam by doing so.

In the other hand when a book promotes it and shows us how it should be done ''Honour-Killing'' why isn't the attention focused on that book but on a different book that condemns it.. :sarcastic

 

[beenie]

So if a book goes against Barbaric teachings it not to mention in here?
Honour-killing is forbidden in the Quran so therefore in islam, if someone practices something differently like ''Honour-killing'' we can say that he or she is not follow Islam by doing so.

In the other hand when a book promotes it and shows us how it should be done ''Honour-Killing'' why isn't the attention focused on that book but on a different book that condemns it.. :sarcastic

The problem is, F0uad, that although Islam condemns honor killings, it is most common in Muslims societies. We're trying to understand why. It has to be cultural, but where did the idea come from?

 

[F0uad]

The problem is, F0uad, that although Islam condemns honor killings, it is most common in Muslims societies. We're trying to understand why. It has to be cultural, but where did the idea come from?

I think Honor and diss-honouring was always a problem for humankind since it lived, but as this is a religion forum i have to say if the Quran or Islam dosn't teach but condems this then we have to look to previous scriptures. And that's how i came to the book i spoke about.

I think people also forget that for example 3000/4000years ago life was totally different human-sacrifices were normally in some villages or city's, killing innocent people and the list goes on. I think we should look forward and not backwards how can we prevent these honour-killings and with which religion can we do so and are people really willing to prevent these things or simply talk about them :cover:

 

[cablescavenger]

I just watched this show that was talking about the Islamic Honor killing of a young girl and while I'm not Islam I feel this was a disgusting act there is no honor in murdering your child. But I'm not advocating violence just venting. Does the Koran condone this or is it something taken out of context?

It is in the bible and also supported by Mohammads teachings.

We have seen quite a few in the UK over the years in Muslim communities, there have also been things like acid scarring and burn disfiguration.

There are some disturbing images and video in the following link (Not for the faint hearted) but according to this article Turkey never used to get honour killings but since it went from Secular to full Islamic in 2002 it has become the largest honor killing country.

 

[beenie]

It is in the bible and also supported by Mohammads teachings.

We have seen quite a few in the UK over the years in Muslim communities, there have also been things like acid scarring and burn disfiguration.

There are some disturbing images and video in the following link (Not for the faint hearted) but according to this article Turkey never used to get honour killings but since it went from Secular to full Islamic in 2002 it has become the largest honor killing country.

LOL way to use an anti-Islamic website as your source for Hadith.
I'm not denying that these horrible honor killings occurred, but I personally believe those Hadith cited are against the spirit of the Qur'an and the Prophet's treatment of women...and are not advocating honor killings.

 

[gnomon]

I think Honor and diss-honouring was always a problem for humankind since it lived, but as this is a religion forum i have to say if the Quran or Islam dosn't teach but condems this then we have to look to previous scriptures. And that's how i came to the book i spoke about.

I think people also forget that for example 3000/4000years ago life was totally different human-sacrifices were normally in some villages or city's, killing innocent people and the list goes on. I think we should look forward and not backwards how can we prevent these honour-killings and with which religion can we do so and are people really willing to prevent these things or simply talk about them :cover:

That's definitely the case.

It's worth pointing out that the scriptures of a particular religion do not support certain practices. Many people outside of a religion can be quick to generalize the whole religion based on the practices of a small community.

I think its obvious that cultures maintain old traditions and incorporate them into the religions they adopted. We see it with Pentecostals in Africa who believe in demonically possessed so called witch children. We see it with female circumcision and honor killings in a few different cultures that are part of large religions in which the scripture does not condone this sort of behavior.

Like ssainhu asks, where do these traditions originate? For instance, I think female circumcision is a form of social control developed independent of any religious beliefs. Unfortunately, I have absolutely nothing to support this. It's just an idea. Inevitably, I don't think it matters. Like you say we need to look forward. But doing so requires people to essentially, in the most diplomatic way possible, to tell people that certain aspects of their culture are wrong.

It's been done before. Results usually come about a generation or two after the efforts for change begin. Women's suffrage is an example.

But in one sense I agree with Looncall. The scriptures of a religion that people claim to follow may not support what they are practicing. Anything from putting up a Christmas tree while celebrating the birth of Jesus to dousing your own child in acid because you think they are a witch. What matters is that they are doing it. The scriptures apparently do not matter to people who practice these things. Whether or not getting those scriptures to matter or some combination of secular and religious support such as that behind women's suffrage will work best I do not know.

At this point I don't know if I'm making any sense or not.

 

[crocusj]

That's definitely the case.


It's worth pointing out that the scriptures of a particular religion do not support certain practices. Many people outside of a religion can be quick to generalize the whole religion based on the practices of a small community.

I think its obvious that cultures maintain old traditions and incorporate them into the religions they adopted. We see it with Pentecostals in Africa who believe in demonically possessed so called witch children. We see it with female circumcision and honor killings in a few different cultures that are part of large religions in which the scripture does not condone this sort of behavior.

But how much do they condemn it? It is done specifically in the name of the religion whether or not the scriptures say so and while this may well be cultural in its lineage are (and have been) mainstream religions guilty of pussyfooting around traditions that they cannot erase and equally guilty of using those that they can supersede to brow beat, all in order to claim a convert? When it comes to the spread of religion, the end seems always to justify the means with the addendum that it takes time convert cultures to the "truth" of the word being spread and yet I see nothing new under the sun apart from numbers to reinforce claims. Let's face it, if people new that the god they purport to believe in condemned their actions then the actions of believers would reflect this and I don't think those of us on the outside looking in can be described as too quick to generalise. It is the perpetrators who identify themselves as religious.

 

[F0uad]

There are some simple solutions for example if the Basic religion in the countries condemns the things they do then ''We'' as civilized people should tell, explain and teach them that. People forget that these things happen in Village's that are outside of any education or Islamic education for example in Afghanistan or Pakistan. You also have rogue groups that want to implant there own way of thinking and political ideas on others such as Al-Qaeda or other Extremist groups in different locations.

This Honour-killings mostly are practised by former Tribe people or it happens in Tribes, we can go back in history and see this happened before any Abrahamic Religion was spread. Like gnomon mentioned we the people who are civilized and do not live in 3rd world countries inside a small village without communication to the rest of the world, should teach these people real the value's of there own religion or at-least some humanistic value's.

 

[gnomon]

But how much do they condemn it? It is done specifically in the name of the religion whether or not the scriptures say so and while this may well be cultural in its lineage are (and have been) mainstream religions guilty of pussyfooting around traditions that they cannot erase and equally guilty of using those that they can supersede to brow beat, all in order to claim a convert? When it comes to the spread of religion, the end seems always to justify the means with the addendum that it takes time convert cultures to the "truth" of the word being spread and yet I see nothing new under the sun apart from numbers to reinforce claims. Let's face it, if people new that the god they purport to believe in condemned their actions then the actions of believers would reflect this and I don't think those of us on the outside looking in can be described as too quick to generalise. It is the perpetrators who identify themselves as religious.

While it's true that the perpetrators identify themselves with a specific religion and incorporate older traditions into those religions I'm saying we cannot generalize that practice as part of that religion as it is viewed by all it's adherents.

For example, I don't know of anyone who would generalize Christians as eschewing modern technology yet a large Christian community does exactly that. We recognize that this is just a relatively small community that has some common religious beliefs as others who call themselves Christians. It's the same for those who continue an old practice that many find abhorrent.

The problem with viewing large religions such as Islam and Christianity as a whole is that we tie in a responsibility with members who practice one view of those religions with members that may practice a radically different view. Are Bosnian Muslims responsible for the actions undertaken by tribal groups in Pakistan for the practice of honor killings? No more than I am.

But yes, on the other hand, it does no good to say that a group practicing a radically different view of these religions as not really being part of that religion. It's more practical to look at the situation specific to that culture. The organizations trying to stop the harm done towards children in small communities in Nigeria over this witch children issue are doing exactly that. There is no discussion of what Christianity really is. No calls for Methodists or Catholics to correct a practice by smaller groups of Pentecostals. Pentecostals in America, for the most part, do not share those beliefs. They may all adhere to a form of Christianity but they are not the same religion. The aid organizations are combining education, aid and involvement with the government to affect change.