Friday, January 11, 2008

Honor Killings in the US

Please read this story on an "honor" killing in the US by a Muslim man. He killed both of his teenage daughters for being too "Western."

20 comments:

Abu Daoud said...

And don't miss the one on the Muslim who beat his wife to death in England, HERE, or the Canadian dad who killed his daughter for dressing unappropriately, HERE.

Sarah Scott said...

This is enormously distressing. I hope his wife is safe until he is found and arrested.

Thanks for the links, Abu.

Michael said...

"Why is it every time an Arab father kills a daughter, it's an honor killing?"

Remarkable.

Doug Groothuis said...

Not every time. This time; and it fits.

Fletcher said...

I don't want to sound extremist, but I really believe that Islam is the biggest problem we face today globally, and this is true on many levels.

I'm so politicallly incorrect though, right?!

The politically correct would say "yes, but so many people have been and are killed in the name of Jesus as well." This is such a terribly ignorant response. Killings in the name of Christ are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus, whereas such honor killings, and "jihad" killings are directly obedient to the teachings of Muhammad. I'm not telling Abu and Dr. G (or probably 98% of this blog's readers) something they don't already know, but hopefully just one reader who hasn't yet, will think about this.

These honor KILLINGS are ridiculous and cannot go unpunished. A father killing his own preecious daughter for dishonoring Islam? It's sickening. I look at my daughter and think how much I would die FOR her.

Doug Groothuis said...

These kinds of "honor kilings" are common in Muslim countries. Often women are killed by their own family member for being raped! Read about this is Spencer's revealing book, The Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn't.

Under Islamic law, the conviction of a man for rape is almost impossible. So, the women are blamed. Again, for details, read Spencer.

Michael said...

It seems to me that fletcher is mostly right here; that these honor killings aren't contrary to the teachings of Islam. But it doesn't seem that railing Islam for allowing or promoting these atrocities is the way to go. I mean, God certainly could set things up to allow them, and many OT stories and laws aren't, prima facie, too far from honor killings.

The real fight here is on the level of apologetics - specifically asking if we have good reason to think Muhammad is God's prophet. Just standing back and calling the killings sickening probably only fuels this zealot/martyr self-concept the killers have, and keeps them seeing us as ignorant infidels.

Fletcher said...

Michael:

I agree, I wouldn't take this approach during discussions with a Muslim. I am not throwing rocks or hurling insults at Muslims at large. I'm sure there are scores of Muslims who are much nicer than I am... I have a few Muslim friends in fact. I am strictly pointing out one of the many differences between Islam and Christianity (no, they don't worship the same God), and also stating a hard fact: Islamic honor killings are 100% wrong.

Apologetics is of supreme importance, you don't have to convince me!

Michael said...

Fletcher - I definitely didn't mean to aim that comment at you. I was just using it as a springboard for my thought. Sorry if it seemed pointed.

Sirfab said...

Fletcher: Islam is the biggest problem we face today? Really? No wonder things in the U.S., and around the world, are getting worse, and worse, and that they are bound to get even worse before they get better.
Islam is certainly the biggest problem that has been *invented* by the ruling class of this country.
Now I know that everything goes back to 9/11, and that 9/11 will serve as the justification for all atrocities past and future committed by the United States government around the world. But, contrary to proclaims that the United States wants to introduce democracy to the Middle East, U.S interests have always been served best by exploiting and supporting tyrannical power in the Islamic world (regardless of public statement of respect for the Islamic faith). U.S. influence in the Middle East is seen, understandably, as meddling with the right to self-determination of Middle-Eastern people. Imagine a world in which a billion Muslims were allowed to elect their truly chosen representatives: what would the West have to gain? Religion then becomes the convenient scapegoat for a reality of colonialist rule which continues unabated even in the 21st century.
To be sure, some of the tenets of Islam clash so intimately with Western thought that Islam is incompatible with the social structure developed in Western societies. And it is very convenient that it is so, because it allows Western governments to pursue their policy of domination of the Middle East with popular support. So ask yourself again: who has to gain the most from perpetuating the idea that Islam is the biggest problem we face today? All that, without the uncomfortable pangs of conscience that would arise from the realization that we are complicit in so many of the world's problems.

Abu Daoud said...

Kudos to Sirfab for perfectly embodying what I like to call "The Muslim Addiction to Victimhood." I mean, when the US gets involved in the ME it is imperialism. When we stay out we are "Supporting Oppressive Regimes."

I have written about this addiction to Victimhood HERE

Readers welcome...

Fletcher said...

Sir Fab:

Before you refute my view that Islam is the biggest problem we face today globally, do you have an objective understanding of its' origin, history, and intentions?

If you did, I would think that you would realize the implications of where Islam could go (if it is allowed) and what it could do would shock you into agreeing with me.

If you do not, then your criticisms are not based on an appropriate level of knowledge.

Sirfab said...

Fletcher:

In spite of your assumption that I do not have the requisite level of knowledge to express my views of Islam vs. the West (who does, if not you?), it seems to me that the West has fared fairly well for centuries even with the threat of Islam looming large on the horizon. In fact, much better than Islam itself, at least from an economic standpoint. Why, we have certainly found a way to exploit the most important natural resource on earth without the people of the countries that control it benefiting from it (proof that Reagan's trickle-down economics does not work that well, in the Middle-East or anywhere else).

This dualistic worldview that adherents of religions seem to have, have where one side holds the whole truth and the other is the enemy to be destroyed/converted/assimilated (the same thing, achieved by different means) is more of a problem than Islam itself. In fact, any contrary opinions are dismissed as "criticism... not based on an appropriate level of knowledge."

So Fletcher, do you wish to deny the fact that religion is a convenient excuse for the colonialist ways that the West has entertained in the Middle East?

Sirfab said...

On another note, and more closely related to the topic of this post:

I, too, agree that honor killings are a barbaric custom that does not reflect well on the people that practice them (and on the religion that justifies them). But what do these curmudgeonly readers think of child deaths that can be traced back to the religious beliefs of their parents (any beliefs, Christian or otherwise)? For example, are parents who reject necessary medical care for their children, ultimately resulting in death, to be excused by religious exception? If so, how are they different from honor killings?

Thank you for your answers.

Fletcher said...

Fabricio:

Let me bottom line it for you my friend (and I say that in earnest, not sarcasm):

The goal of Islam as instructed in the Quran is global domination where all nations will submit to Allah/Islam and there will be NO separation of church and state and NO Freedom of religion whatsoever, and where deconversion is punishable by death, as is lack of conversion.

Islam is not just a religion, but an all encompassing system of governance and societal control that is very oppressive, domineering, and man-centered (of course, it is the invention of a man for men, just like Mormonism).

Further, this spread (per the Quran mind you!), shall take place by force, by "the sword" through mass killings if that's what it takes. This is very clear theme in several places in the Quran (see Surah 9 for example). Don't respond by saying that the Quran also teaches peace and that the Bible has killings/genocide also unless you've really done your homework and can justify this (which you can't if you have in fact studied, because then you wouldn't respond with this typical and uninformed response).

This is the very reason why these terrorist attacks are happening and will continue: The extremists are actually the truly faithful. They are the ones living out the true Islamic faith and adhering to the Quran and commands through Muhammad.

For contrast, Jesus tells us to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Luke 20:25, also in Matthew and Mark). This demonstrates separation of church and state (read the context). Jesus also tells us to love and pray for our enemies (Matthew 5:43-47 and elsewhere) while the Quran teaches to "smite their necks" (behead them, get the picture?).

These terrorist attacks are no accident. Sure, there are obviously some political issues between the ME and the West, but terrorism is how they are instructed to deal with ANYONE (women, children, elderly, it is totally indiscriminate - not just military targets) who will not submit/convert to Islam, period. There are 1,000s of eager young men training to some day blow up themselves, you, your wife, your friends, and anyone else who is there for the "glory of Allah". This is the ONLY assurance of salvation in Islam, there IS no other guaranteed pathway to "heaven" taught in Islam other than jihad self-sacrifice.

Again, for contrast, the Bible teaches us that by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus as our personal saviors we will be saved. That's it. A little different isn't it?

I know my post isn't politically correct, but PCness isn't a measuring stick for truth or accuracy.

See any book by Robert Spencer if you are honestly seeking to know what's going on with Islam. Do the research, THEN comment afterwards please.

Thanks

Sirfab said...

Fletcher:

I am not here to split hairs on the definition or the intent of Islam or Christianity. You know as well as I do that the interpretation of the teachings of the Bible is as subjective as the interpretation of the teachings of the Qu'ran. After all, the Bible instructed God's followers to stone or kill people for a number of sins or beliefs (including adultery: thankfully for a large number of human beings, the standards have relaxed). But you don't see mobs of Christians stoning adulteresses to death any more, do you? So if many adherents of the Qu'ran have moved past a literal intepretation of that book's teachings or if they regard Islam as a faith of love and peace, who are you to argue?

In any case, that was not my original point, which you have chosen to conveniently ignore. My original point is that while you consider the Qu'ran and Islam a deadly threat for the West, the West seems to have fared pretty well over the last few centuries even with that threat looming on the horizon. In other words, we have found a way to deal with the Middle Eastern problem pretty effectively. So forgive me for not regarding Islam as the biggest threat we face today.

Also, do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden and his main aides are motivated by religion in his fight against the West? If so, you have not read enough about the subject my friend. I suggest before you post again you read Robert Fisk (The Great War For Civilazion is a great place to start) or anything on the subject by Greg Palast.

Do the research, then comment AFTERWARDS, please.

Abu Daoud said...

Fabricio,

Actually the interpretation of the Bible is delimited by authoritative Tradition. That is why one can not read the Bible and interpret it in an Arian manner (like Mormons do) and claim to be a Christian.

So there is a control on the interpretation of the Bible--the pre-eminent one being the Nicene Creed (Maybe Dr G would like to post it).

Islam is similar. Anyone who interprets the Quran in such a way that jihad is not a perpetual obligation of all Muslims is heretical--just like a person who says that the Son is not eternal.

Quite simple really.

Fletcher said...

Fab:

I understand the perspectives of our position on Israel, Western foreign policy towards the ME, Western culture, etc. all influencing terrorism, but what I am saying is that the ROOT (when you have a problem go to the root cause) of it all is the Quran. The teachings of Jihad are numerous and crystal clear. You don't need to have a biased interpretation: They are brute facts, they are what they are. This is what I want you (everyone really) to study so you understand. Remember, I/we are not talking about Muslim people here... I am not judging individuals... and I won't.

When's the last time you heard of consistent preaching in Christian churches on how we must attack and murder the unbelievers? What is Christian extremism? It's going overboard in philanthropy or humanitarianism if anything. Don't confuse Christian extremism with right-wing political extremism. To be an extremist in following Christ would mean to live out his calling. To be an extremist in Islam means to live out the callings of Muhammad: Spread Islam (religion AND government) by the sword. It's just the truth.

Sure, the Quran has peaceful messages and ideas pre-Medina, but once Muhammad got his army built up it was all force and the later teachings work on abrogation: They cancel out the earlier (chronologically) peaceful teachings before Muhammad had a military backing.

So this is why I say Islam is POTENTIALLY the world's biggest problem.

Sirfab said...

Abu Daoud:

Your reference to authoritative tradition does not do away with the differences in interpretation on many aspects of the Bible. Need I remind you of the differences among Premillenialists (Dispensational v. Historic), Postmillenialists (Revivalist v. Reconstructionist), Amillenialists, just to mention eschatology? Or the number of Protestant denominations that exist, each with its distinctive features and differences.

And while some would be ready to dismiss the belief in biblical inerrancy as a matter of style, think about the consequences that a literal reading of Genesis has for both believers and non-believers.

So to say that the Nicene Creed settle all scores is far off the mark.

Abu Daoud said...

Fabricio:

I'm not sure if you understand what I am talking about. That debate about eschatology is an orthodox debate. One can hold to any of those positions and be orthodox--none of those positions are ruled out. What one has to agree with is that, "and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

If one does not interpret the Bible thusly, he is either heterodox at best, or more probably heretical.