Jump to content

Talk:Honor killing/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Honour killing seams to be redused to a certain type ignoring all the other.

Other types of honour killing are: - duel (well known in the western world and hopfully outdated by now.) - clan (or blood) revenge. - murder for sexual contacts crossing tribe, race or nation borders.

Quotes

The problem here is Mike18xx, like I have said many times already is that you are replacing an entire section with what you think are verses that encourage honour killing. That is original research. You may think that those verses from the hadith encourage it, but it certainly is not written or commanded by the hadith at all so we can't just say that people honour kill because of the this. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

When you claim sourced material is just "original research" multiple times, my initial assessment that you're not paying transforms into an assessment that you're lying.

Your real problems are that you don't have any credible arguments to back your positions, and no one else, so far, is posting anything supportive of your positions here in talk.--Mike18xx 20:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything supportive of yours either. I only see you reverting over and over or abusing protect tags without having read wikipedia policy. And of course you reverted again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny how this stuff and this stuff and this stuff just keeps happening, ain't it?--Mike18xx 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The first one, a racist site unsurprisingly, talks about stuff that happened in a desert tribe of Pakistan. Of course as I say again Honour killings happen in non-Muslim tribes in Africa too for example. And none of these sources talks about Islam having to do anything with it and definitely doesn't say anything about hadith. I don't see how this helps you. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

LGF is "racist"? Oh, that's too funny -- why, I had no idea that Islam was tied to DNA. (and LGF was merely the messenger.) As for the stories, they speak for themselves and are there for everyone to see once they're past your obfuscations.--Mike18xx 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually denying that it is racist? I didn't expect one of their members to accept it. But anyways you still haven't made your point; just gave us more reason to revert this. Especially seeing the type of forums you use as sources. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I deny that criticism of Islam constitutes "racism"; I am not a member of LGF; and your motives on Wikipedia are transparent. Your bandwagon-fallacy appeal to "us" is also duly noted, as is your inability to mount any rebuttal which does not boil down to "shooting the messenger". The al-takeyya games continue....--Mike18xx 20:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Other honour killings

Irnt Duel & Harakiri honour killings . Why arnt they discussed here .

Start discussing them; I'm interested.--Mike18xx 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In the introduction paragraph, the statement

honour killing .. is non-existent in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania

is wrong, since in Albania, the gjakmarrja very rigidly prescribes murder against murder and strikes thousands of families who live confined in their homes. If this comes from another tradition than islamic honour killing it should as such distinguished.

And, are you sure about Bosnia-Herzegovina? Freb 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Quran and Hadith quotes

The following, with slight alteration, has been submitted several times this evening by me to the beginning of the "In countries with Islamic law" section, and RV'd by anonymous persons in what I label attempts to "sweep bad stuff under the rug"; consequently I have added a Disputed flag to this Wiki entry.

Where there is no mention of "honour killing", per se, in the Quran or Hadiths, several passages authorize harsh punishments up to and including execution for the crime of adultury (accusations of which are usually associated with honour killings), as Muslim apostate Syed Kamran Mirza of the critical Islam-watch.org details in an abbreviated list:

Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honour killing:
Quran-24:2 "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."
Quran-17:32 "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."
Sahi Muslim No. 4206: "A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God's forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her."
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65: Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."
Al-Bukhari: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise".
Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others: Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, "No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!" In another version, it is stated, "When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance".

While such harsh punishment theoretically applies to both males and females, equivalently severe treatments are seldom meted out to males in heterosexual liaisons (homosexuality, however, is dealt with harshly in areas under Sharia Law). 04:40, 24 January 2006 Mike18xx

Latest RV contains edit summary: Links and quotes demonstrate harsh penalties regarding extra-marital sex, and sub-legal status of females in several nations, providing societal conditions making it difficult to prosecute murders. Anon, is your BEST argument for sweeping those quotes under the rug the fact that none of them contain a direct-translation-into-English of "honour killing"?--Mike18xx 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid conclusions, sorry.

a) Capital punishments by ordinary citizens are impermissible according to all four schools of the Sunni as well as that of the Shia. It's like suggesting ordinary Texans are allowed to go around murdering because there's a death penalty enforced by the state. Would you really put that in the Texas article? It might have some relevance in an Islam-watch article though, to show just how far their sophistry goes. b) Just how likely is it that 4 people are going to witness the act of penetration? Unless a person engages in public sex or pornography, it's pretty difficult. These laws are clearly designed to protect against the moral fabric of the society being torn apart.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.109.101 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sentence

This appears at the opening of the article:

"As of recently, there are harsher punishment toward honour killings in many countries like Turkey."

This sentence ignores the fact that significant resistance has been met towards strengthening penalties against honour killings in many Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. It would be an equally true statement to say that "Laws strengthening honour killings have met with defeat in many countries such as Pakistan and Jordan." I think it would be appropriate to simply remove the sentence in question.

Countries, such as Jordan, have resisted stiffening laws against honour killings during recent legislative attempts in that direction. In many Muslim countries, those opposed to strengthening such laws, cite "religious and cultural concerns."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4311055.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3088828.stm

The sentence in question looks like a weak attempt at apologetics.

M.W. - 12:38 PT March 17th

Rape

Problematic sentence:

Honour killings are sometimes performed even against a woman who is raped, for her rape supposedly dishonours the family.

I don't get it. If a man commits a crime which "dishonours" the family, and honour is so important, why don't the relatives avenge this act by punishing the man? How is the woman anything but a victim here?

It's because, in most countries where these crimes occur, culture dictates that a family's honor resides in its women, not its men. I've been working on this problem for almost a decade, and I don't think many of the contributors on this site really understand some of the distinctions between "honor" killings, crimes of passion, other forms of gendercide, etc. This reads like a garbled mess, if I may say so. Too bad, because this is a big human rights problem and already there are so many misunderstandings about what it is, what it isn't, where it all began, etc.

I can't believe anyone actually thinks this way. Can I have a source, please? --Uncle Ed 20:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I have found the answer to my own question all too easily:
  • Among Palestinians, all sexual encounters, including rape and incest, are blamed on the woman. Men are presumed innocent; the woman must have tempted him into raping her or enticed him into having an affair. A woman is expected to protect her honour, even at the cost of her own life. If she survives a violent rape, she is condemned for her "mistake" and may be killed by her family.
  • "The issue of consent is irrelevant when it comes to honour killings," says Marsha Freeman, director of the International Women's Rights Action Watch (IWRAW). "It has to do with the woman being defiled. It completely objectifies the woman as being about her sexuality and purity. It makes her not human." [1]
I've heard about Arabs and other men in the Islamic world having a double standard, but a presumption of innocence for the rapist? I can't even react to that, I'm just totally numb with disbelief. Someone please tell my source is biased! :-( --Uncle Ed 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Your first one does not sound very accurate, the second does however. I'm more to inclined to use that one. It's not a matter of double standards though, he IS supposed to be killed too. However, this depends on a lot of things, the woman is easier to find and hence she is usually killed first, giving him the chance to either go in hiding or flee the area altogether.
Another thing it depends on is the strength of his own tribe. Killing him could lead to a tribal fued which would mean many people are going to die for extended periods of time. A third reason why they tend to get away with it is that the governments are more active when it comes to those fueds (called Thaar). A fourth reason is the laws themselves. While not all laws give reduced sentences, in the countries it does the law usually specifically mentions "sister, daughter..etc." so I think this plays a role too. These reasons explain why most of the victims are women. However, a forth reason may be that they get killed by another memeber of the family after a while so it is classified under regular murder or under thaar.
But men do get killed and if you go to the original tradition (when there is no government to control things, like, say, nomads in the middle of the desert) the man is usually hunted down if he flees. --Maha Odeh 13:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Double standard

By the way, I think this double standard is one of the things which makes Christians (or Western Christendom generally) feel that Islam is a "lesser civilization". Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (note: the man had to have been there, but was not even mentioned in the story) after challenging all the men present: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Then he bent down and wrote something in the sand. (No one knows what he wrote, but as he wrote all the men left "one by one, beginning with the eldest". One can only speculate that he was exposing their hypocrisy.)

One reason Arab cultures oppose the West (particularly the USA) is its protection of women - or shall I say its exaltation of women as having equal value and thus being deserving of equal rights? Ancient Greece and later Western Christendom elevated the status of women, while "backward" cultures continue to treat women as sub-human.

Okay, tirade over. The question is, what part of this is relevant to the current article, and how to work it in? --Uncle Ed 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

These claims are your personal opinion serve no purpose here. I'm sure you are aware that none of it is relevent. You also used some insulting generalisations that I believe do not belong here either. --Maha Odeh 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paradox

I reverted the addition to Category:paradoxes pending a fuller explanation of:

  • honour killing is by definition self-contradictory

Did you mean that it's "dishonourable" to murder a family member, or what? (Not arguing that point, just wondering if that's what you meant.) --Uncle Ed 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Too upsetting

Am I the only one on this talk page? Where are all the feminists? The Islamic scholars? The sociologists?

It's lonely here, guys... gals... --Uncle Ed 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Try this one on for size- Be careful adding too much emphasis on Islam or Arab culture, there seem to be a number of places in the West where honour killing (at least of unfaithful spouses) is let pass or where it is treated differently from the murder of an 'innocent'. (No, for you literal minded folks out there, I'm not saying they aren't innocent, it seems to be the presumption of people who let it happen). MilesVorkosigan 19:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. Based on a brief IRC conversation, I'm of the opinion that there is only a "half correlation" between Islam and honour killing. In other words, it's not in all Muslim societies because Indonesia is a good exception; and it's not only in Muslim societies (see Jesus and the "first stone" incident [2]).

"Honor" killings are believed to have their origins in misinterpretations of pre-Islamic tribal codes. It is unfair to blame them on either Islam (because they predate by far Islam) or the tribes (because they are misinterpretatations of tribal codes). That said, they occur overwhelmingly in Arab/Muslim countries and in Arab/Muslim immigrant communities outside the Arab/Muslim world. This is just an empirical fact.

Rather than tone down the Muslim connection, why not help me research and "tone up" the non-Muslim connection? Article grow best by adding new facts, not deleting old ones. Balance by addition, not deletion. --Uncle Ed 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll try, but I'm not an expert. I'll give it a quick grammar edit, though. And I wasn't saying that you had to change the article, it looks good. I was replying (very late and without making it clear) to your post from 4/13. I think adding that to the article would be going a bit too far. Clearly, many Christians ignore the 'first stone' parable. If the article is correct, many Muslims are ignoring Sharia in performing honour-killings.
My (non-sourced, entirely OR) opinion is that people often justify bad behavior by referring to religion, but that the cause of the behavior is cultural, not religious. MilesVorkosigan 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what these sentences are supposed to mean?

'But since Islam has influence over vast Muslims, culturalist and murderers of females use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for the act in Islam.'

This sentence needs to be reworded, but first of all, what is a culturalist?

' the prior's word or testimony is required to hold the most weight in the eyes of the judge(s),'

Huh? MilesVorkosigan 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Miles,

I believe that according to the writer of the first sentence, a culturalist in the context of honour killings, is a person who commits murder because of some guidelines within their culture as opposed to those within their religion. Although, one could most definitely justify their actions in the name of any religion (as you stated above).

What I meant by "the prior's" was "the suspect's". Not only does the suspect have the last word, while giving their testimony in court, but the judge's verdict depends 100% on what the accused says in their defence. Even if the person lies, the court authorities have no other choice, but to take the individual for their word. And if one is indeed lying, then that would result in truthful witnesses being punished themselves. This is why some people (whether they are Muslim or not), believe that the Sharia took measures to abolish not only honour killings, but also physical punishments in relation to fornication and adultery (charges) to begin with. The Sharia puts an extensive amount of emphasis on evidence, when a person is accused of something or the other, while a person's word does not necessarily equate with the ultimate truth.

Btw, I'm adding a reference to the Islamic Law section that backs up the prior info. Also, if anyone can find some more Hadith sources relating to this issue, it would be of help. Although, I will do my own reference scouting as well.

Silver crescent 04:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I'm going to think about the 'culturalist' thing and try to reword it. I don't believe that's a word.
I see, you are using 'the prior' where I would have put 'the former' or 'the latter'.
It sounds as if even someone who is guilty could not be tried successfully under that interpretation of Sharia. Is that only for adultery, etc.? MilesVorkosigan 04:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been taught that the same trial format relates to (alleged) Muslim apostates and homosexuals (who supposedly commit homosexual acts), in order to spare their lives (according to a given interpretation of the Sharia), since the two "crimes" were punishable by death within scriptural interpretations of certain pre-Islamic religions as well. According to a text that I'm currently reading, people who allegedly bear false witness and label individuals as "unchaste" i.e. as fornicators, adulterers and active homosexuals, are prone to a punishment. Yet it doesn't state that those who supposedly lie about a person being an apostate, rapist and/or murderer go through a similar fate (source: The Qur'an and its Exegesis by Helmut Gatje).

Silver crescent 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Law & Medieval Europe

Europe has been familiar with the practice since ancient empires under (interpretations of) Christian law, in which crimes such as adultery, were often punished with stoning.
[I]t is irrelevant, not true and does not belong here - Lao Wai

Is there a source within the article for the prior info? I have a reference (p.29) stating that interpretations of the New Testament, require the death penalty for pre-marital sex and adultery. But the same source doesn't state whether or not death by stoning, was actually implemented within Medieval European "Christian" law and/or society, as a penalty for the former acts.

Silver crescent 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is worrying that so much of this article seems to come from that source - especially as it is not the work of an Orientalist or Historian but on the biological basis to honour and "heat" killings. Moreover the claim that the New Testament requires death for this seems hard to reconcile with the bit of the Bible everyone has heard. Jesus specifically says "He who is without sin can cast the first stone". I think we need a different page for killing an adulterous wife caught in the act and reserve this one for honour killings. After all there is a difference between killing a wife because you catch her sleeping with someone else and killing your daughter (anyone noticed that honour killings are usually NOT the work of the husband?) because she has disgraced the family. Lao Wai 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Honour killing article isn't actually derived from the prior source. The first two paragraphs within the History section are connected to it, as is one sentence and a couple of words within the third paragraph, but that's about it. Everything else written within the third paragraph, was on this article long before I started editing it. Although, since the already written information about aspects of Ancient Roman and supposed Jewish and Christian law, happened to have similar examples to what was already written within my source, I decided to put it as a citation at the end of the third paragraph.

As for whether or not the author of the source is an Orientalist or a historian, the article doesn't state whether he is or isn't. But considering that I found it on Google Scholar, I think that it's as close to anything "valid" as one can get, when compared to much of everything else found on the net. It's obvious that many article writers are going to be a little biased about certain issues, which is why I believe that the added "interpretations of" (Christian law) part seems fair (if the removed sentence were to be posted up again). If some ancient European empires/countries, did allow (alleged) fornicators and adulterers to be stoned to death in the name of Christianity, I think that it's still an important aspect of this topic on a historical basis (regardless of the "true" teachings behind any religion).

Btw, although I myself am not familiar with principles within the New Testament, I've read and been taught that some Christians in the past/present have taken various teachings within the Old Testament into consideration, (which would include principles within Leviticus and Deuteronomy). Whether a man kills his wife or daughter (or gets them murdered through someone else) because of "dishonour" on their part, it's still pretty much considered to be an honour killing in both cases. Maybe there could be a different "section" of each act on the same page, but I don't see a point in creating a completely different one.

Silver crescent 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If the author knows nothing then he ought to be approached with caution. And anyone who says that the New Testament calls for adulterers to be stoned knows nothing of the NT. The problem is that Google scholar seems to pick up any article that is published in any journal. Some journals are more equal than others. I would like to see any evidence of any Christian state stoning anyone for anything. As I said, Jesus specifically deals with this issue.

John.8 [1] Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. [2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. [3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, [4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? [6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. [7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. [9] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I would maintain a distinction between a crime of passion and an honour killing. The law accepts that a man who catches his wife in the act of adultery might get so angry he would lose control and kill. English law used to. That is very different from someone from the woman's natal family killing her because her husband alleges she has done something shameful. English law has never allowed people to go away and think about it and kill later in a calm mood. So the two are related but they are not the same. I think that distinction is important. After all honour and shame have never been big issues in Western law. Lao Wai 09:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
And anyone who says that the New Testament calls for adulterers to be stoned knows nothing of the NT.

I checked the author's reference and he pointed out to some that "prohibit" adultery. Although from what I read, Matthew 5:27-29 isn't very clear about the topic when it comes to an earthly punishment.

I would like to see any evidence of any Christian state stoning anyone for anything.

Yes, same here. That's why I asked in my first posting of this section, if there was any source on the Honour killing article, to back up the prior data (because I wasn't the one who had written up the Christianity related info to begin with). Just because a religion doesn't (supposedly) ordain a given practice, doesn't necessarily mean that individuals who adhere to the faith follow it properly. From what I've studied, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam (for example) don't believe in honour killings and/or crimes of passion, but that doesn't stop some so-called Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims from carrying out the practices through cultural means. The same thing could have very well ocurred within certain "Christian" states in the past. Considering that there is info relating to individuals within the prior three faiths, of committing the act(s) (within the Honour killing page), it would be unfair to censor examples of some people within certain past "Christian" states, of doing the exact same thing(s) (but only if they really did).

I would maintain a distinction between a crime of passion and an honour killing.

After re-reading the Honour killing article, I agree with the idea that it needs to be cleaned up a bit. But I don't think that the separation of the two acts mainly has to do with who commits them (as was stated in your first posting). After doing some further research, I think that while it is mostly individual husbands who commit crimes of passion and some relatives who carry out honour killings (according to the especially mainstream Western media), it predominantly has to do with when the killing is committed (as you stated above).

Silver crescent 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslim societies

Let's create a section on "honour killings" in non-Muslim societies. According to casual conversation (and Wikipedia talk), about 50% of honour killings occur in contexts unrelated to Islam. It might take a few weeks of reading in the library and googling around, but I think we can do it.

Or at least we can compare what happens to women charged with sexual and marriage offenses in non-Muslim societies. We know what the Old Testament laws were for the ancient Hebrews (Jews?). Fornication outside the city gates was blamed on the man (considered to be strong enough to rape her) - the opposite of modern double standard which blames the woman and not the man. However, inside the gates it was a different story: the scriptures say, "She could have screamed" for help. I have to check, but I think this means that inside the city gates the blame would fall equally on both.

I've heard anecdotes about Texas law permitting a man who catches his wife in the act of adultery to kill her (and/or the man), but only in the context of the "passion of the moment". If he takes time to think about it and plan an "execution", that's not allowed, is it? (Again, different from the tolerated vengeance of an honour killing.) Does anyone have the details on this? --Uncle Ed 16:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Put starkly, then, in much of the world, not only may men kill their wives but also their daughters, sisters, nieces, and cousins - their "family relatives" - when promiscuous behavior is suspected. However, men in such cultures generally may not kill paramours, honour more heavily depending on the virtues of wives and family relatives than on betrayals beyond. [3]
I would be very surprised if there were many honour killings outside the Muslim-cultural sphere: basically Muslim countries and those which have been run by Muslims for a long time (Northern India, Spain etc). There is a difference between normal sexual offenses and honour killings. The Texas law, which is basically a restatement of the old English rule that if you catch your wife in the act it can be sufficient provocation, is not the same as honour killings. Honour killings have very specific Islamic connections because, basically, they are unpunishable in Islamic law. Which is why the natal family kills the women in the Muslim world, not the rapist, not the man she is cheating with, why her husband does not do it etc etc. Lao Wai 10:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's create a section on "honour killings" in non-Muslim societies. According to casual conversation (and Wikipedia talk), about 50% of honour killings occur in contexts unrelated to Islam. It might take a few weeks of reading in the library and googling around, but I think we can do it.

  • Sounds like a pretty good idea.

Honour killings have very specific Islamic connections because, basically, they are unpunishable in Islamic law. Which is why the natal family kills the women in the Muslim world, not the rapist, not the man she is cheating with, why her husband does not do it etc etc.

  • Do you have any valid Qur'anic, Hadith oriented and/or scholarly proof to back up the prior interpretation? Especially the part stating the ideology, that a rapist can get away with his actions?
  • And btw, honour killings occur through the hands of "individuals" within "parts" of "certain" Muslim countries. They aren't common place in every single part of the so-called Muslim world. I also disagree with the usage of the prior terminology, i.e. "Muslim world" ("Western world" or even "Third world"), since we do all live on the same planet.

Silver crescent 23:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to look up diya and the whole process of prosecuting murderers in Islamic law if you like. And I can trivially find sources if you want. I did not say that a rapist can get away with his actions - although of course thanks to the four adult male rule he can - I pointed out that he will have relatives who will pursue justice if he is killed. A raped daughter will not if the family chooses an honour killing. They are not common in every single part I agree. But as a general rule where Islam is new and weak, they are rare. In the heartlands of Islam they are not. So Indonesia has a strong Hindu tradition and Indonesian society is not tribal, not very orthodox and not very prone to honour killings. Precisely none of that is true about Jordan. There is clearly a Muslim world. What is wrong with referring to it? Lao Wai 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we can separate two issues first. I agree with Silver crescent about the usage of terminology which divides humanity into "worlds" - as if we were creatures from different planets! I don't even like the use of the term "race" to describe people whose skin happens to have more or less melanin: all people are human beings. Perhaps we can be aware of how divisive such terms can look when read by others.
An interested point you raise, Lao Wai, is the distinction between:
  • the law tolerates it; and,
  • people choose not to prosecute it
We would then like to see the sources about the process of prosecuting murderers in Islamic law that you mentioned. What may be trivial for you to find, might be exceedingly difficult for others. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
From http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503544836&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE
RETRIBUTION (QISAS):
Apart from punishments for transgressions like extra-marital sex, theft, libel and drinking, the Qur’an also provides for the principle of qisas – retribution. When a person causes physical injury or harm to a fellow human being, Islam gives the injured party the right of equal requital – the well-known principle of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’.
....
The injured person in his turn may forgo his right to retribution by forgiving, or may agree to accept a monetary or token recompense instead. The Qu’ran, in fact, highly recommends the act of forgiving. Thus, under qisas punishment is avoidable without burdening the executive or judiciary with the dilemma of whether to exercise mercy. As against a court which must act according to law once a case is brought before it, an individual is free to act as he wishes. Justice has to be blind, but an individual may take circumstances into account, and suspend judgment in the hope of being forgiven by Allah in the hereafter. Very few realize that the principle of qisas even allows capital punishment to be avoided.
So you can see: an individual is free to act as he wishes (and let his daughter's killer off for instance)

Fundamentalist or cultural

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan wrote in "Women in Islam: Distinction Between Religious and Fundamentalist Approaches":

For instance, in Pakistan, the denial of some basic human rights of women as enunciated by Islam or in the accepted human rights’ texts of the international community, such as violence or honour killings, have little to do with prevalent religion (which is clearly Islam), but are certainly connected to and emanating from cultural prejudices and local customary practices. In these circumstances, while no doubt the fundamentalist elements of society have a more visible role to play in the enforcement of or compliance with such unwelcome rules of conduct devised for women by society, it is not invariable that this is so. Ordinary people may also be the vehicle for the use of discouraging societal compulsions. The worst and most notorious cases of this kind, which were internationally condemned, were not enforced by fundamentalists but by ordinary, even “progressive,” or “modern” elements of Pakistani society. [4]

This sounds like two things:

  • a denial that Islam requires or permits honour killings
  • an admission that 'fundamentalists' may want this (or simply ordinary people)

Am I reading this right? --Uncle Ed 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like a denial - and in fact you will get little else out of modern Islamic scholars in the West. But is it more than a denial? Can he prove his position? Does he even try to? It does not look like it to me. He merely asserts something which I can trivially show is not true: honour killings are obviously directly related to the fact that they are not punishable in Islamic law. Hang a few and watch them stop. The minute people talk about "fundamentalist" you are on soft ground. What does he mean by that? And doesn't he claim it is not the fundamentalists (who merely are visible in their demands) but the "progressive" elements that carry them out? Lao Wai 16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you know more about it than I do. Would you please answer some of these questions in the Honour killing article? --Uncle Ed 16:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Even in the United States, until recent times, wife-killings by husbands, if they caught them in the act of adultery were not considered a crime in some jurisdictions.

  • My source spoke of both crimes of passion (past and present) and honour killings (past and present) occuring within parts/all of the US (towards the end of the honour killing section).

However the practice is over-whelmingly associated with certain Muslim cultures and the peoples influenced by those cultures.

  • Is there a source for this?

However the Quran (4:15) does say "And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them" which can be interpreted as a defence of the practice.

Do you need one? I can probably find one if you really want. But you will notice that this does not insist that killing bad women is a job for government, but can be interpreted as a job for their relatives. And "or Allah opens some way for them" is open to many interpretations. If you think that this does not justify honour killings I am happy to dig around for a source. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

However, honour killings are not punishable in Islamic law, as murder is a type of "qisas" (or "retaliation") crime. This means that the deceased's family is offered the choice of capital punishment or "diya" (or "blood money") and no execution can take place without them opting for death.

I don't think it stated this specifically either, but it did state it if you read it and think about what it says. Now I agree that Islamic scholars in the West, faced with Western criticism of the practice, often argue against it. I am happy to admit that honour killings run counter to many interpretations of Islam. I have never said they were Islamic. But I will restate it again - they are not punishable in Islamic law. So it hardly matters. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some info I found that contradicts the prior interpretation:

Zamakhshari

The individual who has killed a person, is not the one who makes a decision about what their penalty should be, i.e. enduring death or paying blood money to the deceased’s family or wali (i.e. the victim's next of kin, heir, brother and/or friend). That choice, to begin with, lies in the hands of the family/friend of the person who is murdered.

But if anyone is granted remission by his (the deceased person’s) brother (wali), the matter is to be pursued with equity, and the payment (of blood money) is to be made with kindness (surah 2 verse 178). Silver crescent 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How does this run counter to what I said? Isn't it just a restatement of what I said? The one who makes the decision is the wali - usually the girl's father. So if a man sends his son to murder his daughter because she has shamed the family, it is the Father that decides if his son is punished, and, presumably, pays himself the diya. This is simply exactly what I said. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Baidawi

Unjust killing

If a person kills a woman who has (allegedly): committed fornication, been raped or refuses to enter into an arranged marriage etc., then her murderer is supposed to be killed through retaliation (without being given the opportunity to save their life through remission). Silver crescent 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Supposed? By whom? I notice he does not source this. This wouldn't be Jamal Baidawi would it? In which case I'd ask that you consult a Muslim. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In Islamic law, the right to "justly" kill a person only applies in the following cases:

1. Unbelief after previous belief
2. Adultery after having lead a virtuous life
3. Intentional homicide of a believer who is protected (through blood revenge)

But, since the first two offences require a person to be in a court proceeding, in order to extract proof from him/her (which is in itself pretty difficult in reference to finding a verdict), it would be extremely hard for a killer to even claim that their actions were in the right based on suspicion and/or without even going to a trial and hearing the suspect’s side of the story. Furthermore, even if a person was found guilty of a given “crime” in court, governmental authorities and not “common folk” would carry out the punishment. Silver crescent 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is all very interesting. But suppose that a Father has his son kill his daughter. Regardless of what Islamic law says in theory. Just how is he going to be punished? Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Qur’an and its Exegesis by Helmut Gatje (p.194-198, 280)

So although the Quran (don’t know about Hadiths) allows remission - the payment of blood money in specific circumstances (including accidentally killing someone), there is hardly any way that it can be used when it comes to so-called just (or even unjust) killings.

Although, I'm not quite sure as to how individuals who commit unjust killings are punished i.e. by whom and through what manner according to Hadiths, but I'm "assuming" that there would be a trial, since there is supposedly one for pretty much everything else. Silver crescent 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is almost no way of stopping diya being used in honour killing cases. After all, it is up to the deceased's wali - her Father or older brother in the absence of a Father. It is unlikely that they will demand the death sentence for one of their own. Which is why Muslim countries tend not to waste their time prosecuting them. So what if there is a trial? The judge is required in Islamic law to ask the wali if he wants death of diya. If the wali is the person who demanded the death in the first place, I don't think he is going to waste much time over it. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In newly-converted Muslim regions like Indonesia, generally believed to be the country with the largest Muslim population, honour killings are little known, as also in parts of West Africa with majority-Muslim populations and many other Muslim countries.

  • It states within the Islam in Indonesia article, that the religion gained a stronghold within the country during the 12th and 15th centuries (so it has supposedly been there for a while). Although, I'll try to do some more research on the topic, to see if the information is correct.

Silver crescent 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Except Indonesia retains a strong Hindu influence and is not very orthodox - many Indonesians also worship Hindu gods for instance. Orthodox Islam comes with a specific and surprisingly limited set of social practices: tribalism for one - Indonesia retains a semi-divine Kingship system from Hinduism. Honour killings are another. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you need one? I can probably find one if you really want. But you will notice that this does not insist that killing bad women is a job for government, but can be interpreted as a job for their relatives. And "or Allah opens some way for them" is open to many interpretations. If you think that this does not justify honour killings I am happy to dig around for a source.

  • It’s not about me necessarily needing one. It has to do with the fact, that there are rules on wikipedia, maintaing that information within articles should be cited and/or sourced. If certain people have used that verse in defence of honour killings, then it would be relevant to place it on the page, but if not then there wouldn’t be point in posting it up.

How does this run counter to what I said?

  • I think that I had misread you statement and thought that you had written that it was the “killer’s” choice and not the “wali’s”.

Supposed? By whom? I notice he does not source this. This wouldn't be Jamal Baidawi would it? In which case I'd ask that you consult a Muslim. Lao Wai 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I did write up the reference to the info: The Qur’an and its Exegesis by Helmut Gatje (p.194-198, 280). The only reason as to why I linked the names of certain Muslim scholars, is because I wanted to demonstrate (through their biographical birthdates) how these were “Eastern” scholars of the “past” and not “modern” scholars of the “West” (especially in reference to Baidawi’s view). Since I used a book as my source (as opposed to an easily accessible site), I also wanted to portray that the people I referred to, actually existed and were/are known religious researchers/interpreters.

Which is all very interesting. But suppose that a Father has his son kill his daughter. Regardless of what Islamic law says in theory. Just how is he going to be punished?

There is almost no way of stopping diya being used in honour killing cases. After all, it is up to the deceased's wali - her Father or older brother in the absence of a Father. It is unlikely that they will demand the death sentence for one of their own. Which is why Muslim countries tend not to waste their time prosecuting them. So what if there is a trial? The judge is required in Islamic law to ask the wali if he wants death of diya. If the wali is the person who demanded the death in the first place, I don't think he is going to waste much time over it.

  • A wali doesn’t necessarily mean father/brother as I earlier stated, it can also mean: next of kin, heir, friend or even fellow Muslim if one relates brother to the idea of brotherhood etc. (Gatje 196).
  • Considering that the Quran (according to “mainstream” Islamic ideology) doesn’t see apostasy from Islam as a crime (2:256, 4:137), requires proof for “sins” (i.e. adultery) and dedicates verses to the latter in regards to trial procedures (24:1-26), the only logical explanation would be that the verses relating to trials and evidence came after the ones talking about remission through blood money (as a form of knowledge related progression on a fair law and order basis). I’ll try to find out about when the verses relating to each of the concepts were revealed (date and/or year wise). If my theory is indeed correct, then even those (unfair) Muslim judges/prosecutors who solely seek guidance through the Quran and don’t take Hadiths into account (which to some heightens law and order even more), would have to put more emphasis on the “eye for an eye” concept, than on the one supposedly declaring that a father/brother/cousin can get away with killing a female relative without somehow being seriously punished. But yes, your two above statements have a point.

Except Indonesia retains a strong Hindu influence and is not very orthodox.

  • Your article statement specifically speaks of "newly converted" countries as opposed to "unorthodox" ones.

Silver crescent 13:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A Wali is a specific term in Islamic law and goes down a list. First the Father, in the absense of a Father, in the absense of a brother, etc etc. A Wali can't be just any guy picked by the judge. If the family kills someone, the family decides on diya. Mainstream Islam manifestly does see Apostacy as a crime worthy of death - it is the Quran-only Muslims and some apologists in the West who think otherwise. I do not follow what you mean by about trials. If a Father sends his son out to kill his daughter, the son may well have a trial. At that trial the Father, being the deceased's wali, will be asked if he wants death or diya. By all means search. But a judge must not ignore the aHadith, indeed he could not judge if he did, but the aHadith tend to be harsher than the Quran. Look at adultery. It is a fact that fathers and brothers do get away with honour killings. Every day. And always have. It is a loophole in Islamic law if you're secular or a design by God if you're religious. Newly converted and unorthodox tend to go together. As they become more aware of Islamic law they become stricter and stricter. Indonesian Islam, tolerant and semi-polytheistic, is dying as we speak. Lao Wai 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A Wali is a specific term in Islamic law and goes down a list.

  • According to my research, it isn't very specific. The closest one can get to its "original" meaning, is "the person who stands near him/her" i.e. the murdered (through a community based relationship) (Gatje 198). Lets also remember that the Arabic language holds various different meanings, when it comes to some/many of its words. It has also changed to a certain extent over the centuries on grammatical level. Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A wali is a guardian. You can't say it can be just anyone. It has to be a close male relative. It is only in the absense of any male relative that someone else can fill in for them.
From http://app.romm.gov.sg/internet/about_marriage/romm_wali.asp
What is a Wali (Legal Guardian)?
In Islam, a Wali definition is that of a person, who is responsible for the bride's life before she is married. As a Wali, it is also his duty to ensure that the proposed groom is a reliable and a trustworthy person who will continue to carry on his role and responsibility towards the Bride after her marriage.
Who is a Wali?
Listed in the proper hierarchy, a Wali can be the Bride's birth father, her paternal grandfather, brother, paternal uncle or any male relative from her paternal side. If there is none available, then the Kadi will assume the role as a Wali.
I am happy to accept that Arabic is often confusing, but wali is a living legal term that has been in constant use for 1400 years. It is not going to drift much. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Islam manifestly does see Apostacy as a crime worthy of death - it is the Quran-only Muslims and some apologists in the West who think otherwise.

I do not follow what you mean by about trials.

  • My explanation never opposed the first view: Considering that the Quran (according to “mainstream” Islamic ideology) doesn’t see apostasy from Islam as a crime (2:256, 4:137) ... Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think that mainstream Islam sees the Quran as very much regarding apostacy as a crime. The Quran cannot conflict with the Hadith, but must demand the apostate die. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I never stated that certain Hadiths didn’t. The point I was trying to make, was that even if certain honour killing individuals/governmental authorities only follow the Quran, (since a small amount of Muslims around the world believe that all Hadiths are a sham - which isn't necessarily my personal viewpoint), on top of the allowance of remission and blood money within the text, there’s also mention of an alleged adulteress (for example) having to go to court, enduring a trial (to extract proof from the suspect) and/or being punished on a judicial level. One reason as to why some Muslims hold all Hadiths as unreliable, is because there’s no proof that any Hadith was written before fifty years after Prophet Muhammad’s death (according to what I’ve been taught). So if my former theory is indeed correct, that the Quran reformed the former pre-Islamic practice to the latter (with time), a father’s choice to allow or disallow his murderous son to live (for example), would be relinquished and everything would have to be in the hands of the court judges instead. Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The Quran-only Muslims are a modern, Westernised irrelevance. I agree that the Quran also mentions that adulteresses ought to go to court, but then it also says murderers ought to go to court. Neither do very often. What it does not do is forbid Muslims from taking the law into their own hands. After all Muslims collectively have the responsibility to forbid the bad and command the good. Muslims collectively have an obligation to enforce the law. If you tell a mainstream Muslim the aHadith are unreliable they will get cross, but it is the mainstream Western position that they are and they reflect pre-Muslim custom. I am not sure how relevant this is because Roman law gave fathers unfetterd power. I know of no Muslim legal system anywhere is the world that has ever punished honour killings or taken a Father's right to choose away. I'd be interested if you know of a case. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I was also relating teachings within the Quran to Baidawi’s views. If the option of blood money can only be used in the following cases: unbelief after previous belief, adultery after having lead a virtuous life and the intentional homicide of a believer who is protected (through blood revenge), then how can one justify killing an individual and getting away with it, when the Quran doesn’t see apostasy as a crime and doesn’t call for the death of adulterers (aside from flogging unless one is truly sorry – surah 4 verse 17)? Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I would question, very strongly, whether blood money is payable after those first two. Perhaps some Western Muslims wish that were the case. But it is payable after the third. You do not have to justify it. Islam does not believe in Natural Law per se and so does not have to reconcile all aspects of the law in a bigger picture. If God has put a loophole in the law, it is because God wants you to use it. There is a whole science of, basically, using the Sharia to get away with whatever you want - interest for instance. If God wanted to punush honour killings, He would have said so. The law is perfect, if it does not punish them, and it doesn't, they must be right. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some research and according to Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall’s Meaning of the Glorious Koran, the verse allowing the option of blood money vs. capital punishment, was revealed between 1 and 2 A.H. (Pickthall 34). But the verse speaking of trial based evidence in relation to adultery was revealed between 5 and 6 A.H. (three to five years later) (Pickthall 253). So my view could very well be in the right. Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It remains the case that Islam assumes a very weak state-structure and does not assume a state monopoly on violence. I do not see that the Quran mandates trials for anything. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

but the aHadith tend to be harsher than the Quran.

  • Some Hadiths are harsher (punishment wise), but they also make it more difficult for a fornicator, adulterer and active homosexual etc. to be convicted for their “crime” than the Quran does. Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That is true. Rapists as well. Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that your viewpoint on this topic is more of an opinion that the clear-cut “truth”. Even if you'd like to write about interpretations of practices within Islam (or any other religion for that matter) within an article, then please phrase your sentences properly. Rather than stating that: Islamic law does not prescribe a punishment for honour killers, it's more neutral, less biased and more factual if one adds in "interpretations of" in front of the sentence.

Silver crescent 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not really interested in clear-cut "truths". I am interested in what Muslims do and have done. If you can find me a traditional pre-modern, non-Western Muslim who believe honour killings were wrong, I would be very interested to know. Seriously. You would have to prove that these alternative opinions exist outside Western academia before I would have to take them into account. Islamic law simply does not allow a punishment for honour killing unless the family wants it. It may be the case that they should try their daughters, although I doubt it, but it is not the case that they can be punished for not doing so - any penalty attached to that Quranic verse? Lao Wai 10:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy. http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/feminist%20muslims/honour_killings.htm - Mustafaa 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a nice source, but it is not about the killing of women but the killing of men. Nor is it about the killing of people within the natal family. Take this for example
Malik narrated from Sa'id b. Yahya from Sa'id b. al-Musayyib that "A man from Syria, with the name of Ibn Khaybari, discovered a man with his wife so he killed him, or both of them. Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan was unsure of how to rule in his case, so he wrote a letter to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, asking him to ask 'Ali b. Abi Talib about that [case]. So he asked 'Ali about it, and 'Ali told him, 'This is not a case in my domain. I beseech you to tell me [its circumstances].' Abu Musa al-Ash'ari said: ‘Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan wrote me a letter directing me to ask you this question.’ Ali said, I am Abu Hasan -- if he [Ibn Khaybari] does not produce four witnesses, let him be given with a rope [to the relatives of the deceased]."
Clearly there is no point handing over someone who has killed his sister to his family as they will pardon him. This is why, I would claim, honour killing takes the form it does in the Muslim world - not of husbands necessarily killing their wives, but of fathers and sons killing their sisters and daughters: they cannot be punished unless the family agrees. Islamic law shapes Muslim society so that women are killed by their blood kin as they can get away with it. Lao Wai 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All of my information (except for the one by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall), i.e. the different definitions of the term wali, "just" vs. "unjust" killings as well as statements ordaining trial procedures etc., came from the Qur'an and its Exegesis ("Gatje") book. As I earlier stated, this text refers to scholarly interpretations by Zamakhshari (1074 - 1143 CE) and Baidawi, who was alive during the 1200s, as spoken of within their linked bios (that I posted on this talk board on May 29th). Furthermore, I clearly stated on my May 30th post, that:

I did write up the reference to the info: The Qur’an and its Exegesis by Helmut Gatje (p.194-198, 280). The only reason as to why I linked the names of certain Muslim scholars, is because I wanted to demonstrate (through their biographical birthdates) how these were “Eastern” scholars of the “past” and not “modern” scholars of the “West” (especially in reference to Baidawi’s view).

Silver crescent 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have looked up the Gatje book but it does not look much help to me. It is a book on the Exegesis of the Quran and not fiqh. I see who you mean by Badaiwi though. I do not see how this supports your case though. If a man sends his son to murder his daughter, how can Islamic law punish him - especially as only the son is to blame anyway? Lao Wai 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honor_killing/Archive_2&oldid=1080615258"