NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Ibrahim wrote:
Aside from the rather unsubstantiated assertion that this is a "practice" that a) originates with Islam,
Read my posts again, I said the opposite of this. In fact I said, "It's UNFAIR to associate honor killings to Islam
as if it Islam originated it.
Yet you link it to Islamic culture and society, and even ask why there is no effort to curb it, all of which is incorrect. Calling someone a murderer is not offset by pointing out that the person didn't invent murder.
As for the relation to "marrying parallel cousins," and the articles you linked to that effect, I'm not convinced that there is a causal relationship there, even if there is a coincidence. It is of no relevance to the infamous cases I'm familiar with.
b) spread with Islam,
Which it seems to have done, I think it's hard to argue against that.
Well you would need to know if it was practiced in these places prior to their conversion, would you not? And even then you would have to demonstrate a causal relationship.
c) is "social norm,"
Seems that a lot of people are A-okay with the practice, and find it justifiable.
You posted numbers claiming the contrary in from a number of Islamic countries (e.g. Indonesia), and again we are using the opinion poll as scientific evidence. Actual incidents would be the only useful measurement, and the idea that "Muslims" as a group think this is a justifiable activity is simply ridiculous and offensive. Such claims would need to be so hemmed in by geography, education, and social class that the generalized label would be meaningless.
and d) is related to "marrying parallel cousins," which you allege is itself an Islamic norm,
Never alleged that, don't lie. I couldn't make it clearer that it was a social norm for the areas where Islam originated. Parallel Cousin Marriage predates Islam, it has been practiced in Syria and Israel for a long time- spread into Arabia and went from there.
Far from being a lie, you call into question what you even meant in the first place. The question isn't where it originated, but whether or not it is a part of Islamic culture. As with "honor killings."
I'm sure we could follow a similar pattern in Southern India, but this is not a discussion on India.
You raised India as an example.
you are ignoring the fact that the "practice" of honor killing as you call it is illegal everywhere, even in countries which claim to be governed by the most extreme interpretations of sharia law (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
Legal=/=Social, and I'm not ignoring it
You asked "why doesn't Islam temper it?" and I point out that it is illegal in all Islamic countries. This is a simple answer to your question. Islam does not just temper it, in outlaws it. And even if somebody (say, the Taliban when they take over Afganistan again) were to legalize it I would still argue that it was inherently un-Islamic and the majority of the Islamic world agreed with me on that point.
I've never seen it justified as a legal act, so it is fraudulent to claim that there is no effort to temper it.
Legal and social are two different things.
This is an irrelevant statement. What laws a society enacts is clearly evidence of the ethics and ideals of that society, even if "laws" and "society" are two different things.
Again, this is grossly misleading, not only because it has not been demonstrated that this is an accepted Islamic practice, but also because you've already acknowledged that other groups engage in it.
No, this is another prevarication on your part. I don't need to demonstrate it as an accepted Islamic practice because I am not trying to prove it was an "Islamic" practice.
Mere semantics. You are arguing that this practice is a part of Islamic culture, and you also imply with your question that Islamic countries don't do anything to prevent it, which is clearly false.
But it is practiced in the Middle East (as well as Southern India)
This is not being questioned.
And of course this still has nothing to do with civil society or the alleged premise of this thread.
Normally, when someone says something in favor of the position another person holds (ie me bringing up that Taboo's incorrect in asserting that Islam has something to do with honor killings, ) that person usually doesn't waste energy attacking and grossly misrepresenting what was said.
I find the majority of what you wrote in this thread objectionable, for the reasons I've described. I can't speak to your intentions or what you meant to say.
I thought it important to the conversation and an interesting point, considering the insinuation that Muslim countries are inherently barbaric as if they invented honor killings.
My questions are relevant though- why hasn't Islam tempered this practice?
This question itself is the most problematic element of your entire participation in this thread. The practice is outlawed in all Islamic countries. Anecdotally I've never heard of anyone who wasn't revolted by the idea of it. Yet you imply that there is no effort to prevent the practice and that it is widely accepted. This is the same post-9/11 game of finding the most backwards Taliban example and defining it as normative "Muslim" behavior. Perhaps your intentions were entirely good in engaging in this subject but you are still perpetuating stereotypes.
And again, I ask how groups like the Druze and Maronites handle the issue.....I don't know, for all I know they are the biggest practitioners of honor killings....
Nobody has answered this question, probably because nobody knows. You'll have to do some research on this and get back to us.
But most pertinently, it certainly is on topic, because the way a family is treated says a lot about the civil society that is going to be formed.
Then surely you subscribe to my earlier objection to Sam Harris' premise (which Taboo brought up again in this thread): if we are to judge civil societies by the standard of how they treat minority groups and women then there have been no "civil societies" in all of human history prior to sometime in the 1960's.
If that's the standard we are agreeing upon then perhaps we can move forward and point out places that do and don't have "civil societies," though even then the original claim is still laughable because I can certainly find
some Muslims
somewhere practicing "civil society" as nicely as any Scandinavian atheist, though perhaps not in rural Egypt.
or older, then bet Hindu .........
. ) 
