A shocking Muslim 'honor killing'
At the President's conference on Thursday, I heard Shimon Peres quip at least twice that the biggest obstacle to Arab advancement is Arab husbands. Perhaps he ought to be saying that to 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Over a year ago, on April 20, 2010, 20-year-old Aya Baradiya disappeared. Her paternal uncle, 37-year-old Iqab Baradiya, and two accomplices had kidnapped her, bound her hand and foot, and threw her down a well, leaving her to die a slow and painful death. Her remains were not found for more than a year.But has Abu Bluff really wiped those laws off the books? Phyllis says that he has not.
Aya was a religious woman who wore a hijab. Her university classmates described her as “chaste and noble-minded.”
What crime did she commit? Aya wanted to marry a man. Her suitor went through the traditional channels. Her parents approved of the match but wanted her to wait until she graduated. Her uncle, 17 years older than she was, strongly disapproved of the engagement. And so he killed her.
In typical Arab style, President Abbas has said he has done something but he has really done nothing. He has not yet signed his vow into law or published it. Abbas has used the unexpected outcry against the (non-honor) murder of a young woman who is being called a “martyr,” and whose reputation was above reproach, to stage a symbolic but actually toothless response to the very real epidemic of honor killings among Arabs. According to experts, judges do not rely upon the “mitigating factor” provision when they hand down lenient sentences for honor murderers. According to Haaretz, a newspaper with which I generally do not agree, here are the facts about what Abbas did (and didn’t) do:Shimon Peres is right that the biggest obstacle to Arab advancement is Arab husbands. But what he won't admit is that it is also a huge obstacle to peace. Today, Arab women who need to escape their abusive families in Judea, Samaria and Gaza have only one place to turn... Israel. Can you imagine a 'peace treaty' with the 'Palestinian Authority' in which Israel is required to turn these women over to their abusive families? It would be immoral and for that reason it won't happen. 'Palestinian' society will have to treat women as human beings before they can enter into any treaties with us. And that's how it ought to be.[A] review of the draft of the presidential decree indicates that judges in Palestinian courts, who showed leniency toward murderers – handing down sentences ranging from six months to three or four years in prison in such cases – did not necessarily rely on the two problematic clauses mentioned above, but rather, on other articles not even mentioned in the presidential decree.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, honor killing, Muslim treatment of women, Palestinian Authority
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:28 AM
17 Comments:
Arab women need equality in their societies. Don't look for that to happen in our lifetime.
Why is this sordid tale of assorted political opportunism (Abbas) and a murdererer (Aya's uncle) given this title and tag,
A shocking Muslim 'honor killing',
Muslim treatment of women,
when honour killings have been condemned as anti Islam. They predate Islam. Key words:
Her parents approved of the match but wanted her to wait until she graduated. Her uncle, 17 years older than she was, strongly disapproved of the engagement. And so he killed her.
Does it mean uncles have the right to kill nieces if they don't like her engagement? This is what "Muslim honour killing" infers.
What is this??
Phylis Chesler is hardly the best person to rely on for an unbiased account, (her vision is coloured by her own background) Why is she your prime expert analyser for news on abused or murdered Muslim women?
Basically the gist of her ludicrous case is that Palestinians should not negotiate a state until they sort out how to treat women. What an opportunistic take.
Honour killings in the Middle East occur amongst the Druze, Christian, Jewish and other minorities too. They make more headlines amongst the Muslim community simply because Islam is the dominant religion.
Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:
“Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, “Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom.” (An-Nisa’: 93)
The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.
It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”
Please tell us about all of the 'honor killings' committed by Jews, and by other minorities such as Bahais, etc.
You'll have trouble doing so b/c there aren't any.
Quite a contrast to Muslim nations where this is a very large problem.
Want to say what a lying (at best ignorant) Muslima our Chayma is?
Read: Why it matters that honor killing has Islamic sanction
The same Al-Azhar University with seemingly contradictory statements. But they're not contradictory if you read carefully.
This is the scum which is Islam.
@KerrySH
Oh for crying out loud…
It’s true honor killings go on in some Muslim (Jordan for example) communties but are not exclusive to them, nor have anything to do with the faith, they’re tribal habits a left over from patriarchial societies.
Moreover, the incidents for domestic violence murders and crimes of passion is far higher worldwide than honor killings.
The point I was making above was that they’re used against the Muslim community by Islamophobes, but when a Christian, Druze, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Yazidi, comits an honor killing, they don’t care. Has Phylis Chesler ever highlighted a non Muslim honor killing?
Rob Wagner is the former editor of the Saudi Gazette,
The Myth of Honor Killings
By Rob L. Wagner
http://sites.google.com/site/roblwagnerarchives/the-myth-of-honor-killings
In 2006 a Catholic Italian man shot his sister to death for having a child out of wedlock. Up until 1991, men in Brazil could be absolved of killing their wives over honor.
In Yemen, a Jewish father killed his daughter after a rabbi complained that she had a child from an affair. And a Christian father beat his daughter to death in 2005 in Palestine because she wanted to marry a Muslim.
Last year in Bashika, Mosul, a 17-year-old woman, a member of the Yezidi religion was stoned to death for having an Arab Muslim boyfriend.
Chayma's link to another boot-licking article on Islam does not resolve the points brought up in the article I linked to. Here it is again:
Why it matters that honor killing has Islamic sanction
Another failed taqiyya attempt, Chayma. Of course, you can always plead ignorance. Your choice. Facts are any annoying thing, ain't they?!
Looks like dear ole uncle wanted the poor girl for his own, lecherous, self.
May she rest in peace. And may G-d give her justice with HIs full vengeance.
@ Shy Guy
Chayma's link to another boot-licking article on Islam does not resolve the points brought up in the article I linked to. Here it is again:
Wagner is not a bootlicker, he used factual cases. The same cases used here for example. Besides KerrySH said “you won’t find a Bahai, Druze, Jewish honour killing”
Crimes of Honor and Shame: Violence against Women in Non-Western and Western Societies
by Sharon K. Araji, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2000 *
The Honor-Shame Connection
http://critcrim.org/redfeather/journal-pomocrim/vol-8-shaming/araji.html
In some Arab Muslim countries under Ottoman rule, a killer reportedly would "sprinkle his victim's blood on his clothes and parade through the streets displaying the bloody murder weapon...to increase his honour" (Kressel, 1981, p. 143). He was considered not a murderer, but "one who restored honour" (Kressel, 1981, p. 143).
There is still evidence that countries such as Jordan remain influenced by the Ottoman conceptualization of honor and shame.
Campbell, (1964) notes that the need to dispel shame is important in non-Arab societies as well. In a Greek mountain community study she found that no action, or action not taken quickly enough, can increase damage to the family's honor. To illustrate the necessity of response, Ginat (1979) recounts a case involving a Jewish family from Yemen. Herein, a young wife would not end an extramarital affair so her husband publicly criticized the father for not controlling his daughter. The father, a Rabbi, had already been faced with disapproval from his congregation for not controlling his daughter's behavior. When he was publicly criticized for his inaction he had to respond. He did, by strangling his daughter.
@ Tuleesh
Looks like dear ole uncle wanted the poor girl for his own, lecherous, self.
No. Your religion allows marriage to a niece, but Islam doesn’t. A niece is one of the forbidden women. She could however marry his son, a cousin in other words.
We do not know what the full facts of this tragic case are. An uncle doesn't normally kill his niece because he doesn't like her fiancee. There must have been another reason, maybe she was an heiress and he didn't want family wealth being shared with someone he didn't like, or maybe he wanted her for his son...we don't know
None of the reasons justify killing her of course...it's an OUTRAGE that this is labelled a "muslim" crime
Shy Guy, you have the audacity to call a perfectly respectable editor a “boot licker” and then insist I trawl through the lies of Spencer, this smearer and enemy of Muslims. What is this? As of now either make your case with credible sources or you’ll get a sharp kick somewhere that will render you impotent. I almost threw up, after reading his screed.
I’ll indulge you this one time though,
Want to say what a lying (at best ignorant) Muslima our Chayma is? Read: Why it matters that honor killing has Islamic sanction:
The same Al-Azhar University with seemingly contradictory statements. But they're not contradictory if you read carefully. :
Al Azhar didn’t say that. Spencer did. This is lie complete with a straw man.
Spencer said:
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."
Jordan was influenced by this honour killing practice from Ottoman Turkey, which got it from the Greeks. NOT FROM ISLAM.
The Al Jazeera article and quote Spencer linked to proves his lie.
Those that rejected this bill to stiffen penalties for honour killings, didn’t use the Hadeeth he gave. Jordan today is secular and allows free mixing of the sexes, which is what that quote meant and what they oppose. He created a straw man, and pretended that they were talking about that particular Hadeeth. They were not.
This is the scum which is Islam.
NO. it is the scum which is Spencer.
He is NOT an expert on Islam, he doesn’t even have any qualifications. Which university uses his work? Which historian has ever given him credibility? The intellectual elite (historians and scholars of Islam) condemn him for his lies. He takes one Surah from the Quran, another Hadeeth from somewhere, and pretends they are connected. He then scours the newsfor something he can use to connect these three together and pretends whomever comitted the crime used these same verses, when in reality the person may never have even heard them. It’s the classic propoganda and lie and smear trick. Do you know he is paid over $500k to manufacture propoganda by the Horowitz foundation?
Another failed taqiyya attempt, Chayma. Of course, you can always plead ignorance. Your choice. Facts are any annoying thing, ain't they?!
It’s very telling that you use a Christian supremacist wannabe "scholar of Islam", with no qualifications in Islamic studies, then accuse me of Taqiyya. What’s the matter? Afraid that a proper historian will tell the truth? IS THIS HOW WEAK YOUR CASE IS?
Here is a better source for you, endorsed by the worlds leading university.
The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies is a Recognised Independent Centre of the University of Oxford.
It was established in 1985 to encourage the scholarly study of Islam and the Islamic world.
http://www.oxcis.ac.uk/
A place where Spencer wouldn't even qualify as a "bootlicker" :)
I can't help you, Chayma, if you still have not graduated from Reading Comprehension 101.
When you figure out a tactic other than auto-demonizing Robert Spencer, Phylis Chessler, David Horowitz and anyone else who can read Islamic scriptures, commentary and legal rulings for themselves, give us a call.
Thanks for dropping in!
Shy Guy,
and I didn't say they cannot read. Anyone can read. How we follow and interpret them, can only be decided by us, not by Spencer or Chesler or others.
I exposed Spencer's lies. Is there anything there you are not clear about?
Be a gentleman, and admit you use crap sources when they are exposed as frauds. I did Spencer above didn't I?
The only crap source here is you, Chayma. Where did you "expose" a lie by Spencer?
Try dealing with Spencer's verbatim quote from 'Umdat al-Salik':
"retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
Shy Guy
Umdat al-Malik (The Reliance), is a 14th century (or 12th century) medieval Muslim law manual of the Shafai sect of Islam whose author was Shaikh Ahmad ibn Naqib Al Misri. It was translated by Al Azhar Univeristy along with thousands of other documents. Umdat al-Malik is not supposed to be studied without a scholar present to guide you because it has no reasonings or rulings and the commentary is incomplete.
These texts are only for use by the properly qualified, those who have gone through the proper channels to learn. Learning these texts is a form of worship in itself. You move up the ladder, as you learn one, you go to another, more complicated one. It takes many years to complete. A nobody like Spencer hasn't a prayer of understanding the gems of Islamic knowledge.
That is the background of Umdat al-Malik in a nutshell.
Spencer uses it because, (for the reasons I mentioned above) he has free rein to distort it's intended meanings by the author as it is incomplete. He fails to disclose that the texts are studied in their historical contexts. You cannot just pick one text centuries old and quote it to suit your agenda today. Even those who issue fatwa's cannot do that. Which is exactly what Spencer does.
How does Spencer have the gall to quote "verbatim" from Umdat al-Malik and pretend it is a ruling, when even learned scholars of Islam have to be guided when they study this? It's not a complete text in itself,
Continued in next post..
Shy Guy
Now to clear Spencer’s lie about this:
"retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
The commentary is incomplete and isn’t a guide or a ruling. It means that a parent cannot be retaliated against if they kill their child. This is due of the respect and honour that the father or mother is entitled to from their children. The question here remains does the parent get away scot free for killing their child?
As the text is incomplete, the answers lie by looking into other texts, for example the Maliki jurisprudence has some answers.
The Matan Al Risala written by Shaikh Al Qayrawani, a Maliki jurist has some solutions as to what to do when faced with this dilemma.
Al Qayrawani,recommends that the parent who kills a child should be held liable for a higher blood money than is the norm, unless it is a deliberate murder, then the punishment for murder (execution) has to be meted out to the parent.
Matan Al Risala
Chapter 37. Judgements on Homicide and Hadd-Punishments
http://bewley.virtualave.net/RisAhkam.html
37.3c. When a father kills his son
The blood money is made more exacting in the case a father who kills his son by throwing a piece of iron at him and killing him. He is not put to death for his death, but he must pay 30 five year old she-camels, 30 four year old she-camels and 40 khalifas, which are pregnant camels. It is said that the 'aqila [the tribe] pay that and it is also said that it comes from his own property.
[ This includes anything which he does without the intention to kill him. He is not executed because of the respect for fatherhood. If circumstances indicate the he actually intended to kill him, then he is killed for him in the well-known position.
Going back to Spencer's citation, what Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2 was discussing was the punishment for a parent who kills a child. Not for shaming the family or for honour, but just killing, nor for a planned murder which is what an honor killing is.
The key deception here, is that Spencer pretends that the commentary he cited is for honor killings or for shaming.
There are no specific primary texts within Islam, from either the Quran or the hadith, that either promote or tolerate the killing of relatives for allegedly shaming the family.
For the record, if even killing the enemy children is forbidden to the Muslim, how much more sacred is your own children's life. In war for example, only enemy men are killed, not women or children or animals, even plants and orchards have to be protected. There are laws as to how animals should be treated in war. No cruelty for example.
Are you satisfied now?
Oooops, a typing error in my last two posts:
Umdat al-Malik (The Reliance),
should have been:
Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance),
Shy Guy
Any comments or questions on the above? Now that your "expert on Islam" Robert Spencer's LIE of honour killings being sanctioned by Islam has been exposed, answer this:
Is there any reason why you use Spencer, and not Daniel Pipes as a source. Pipes has actually bothered to study Islam in Egypt so he certainly has more credence than Spencer though he is an Islamophobe. Oh wait I know the answer to that. It's because Pipes grudgingly admits he does find the religion of Islam attractive isn't it? That wouldn’t go down well with your agenda, now would it? Rather a Muslim hater..
It's telling you use a Christian supremacist wannabe "scholar with no Islamic credentials" who is no more pro Judaism than he is pro Islam. Someone paid to lie and distort. He supports a stun ban, which means he would do what Geert wilders did in Holland, supported a ritual slaughter ban.
Do you think Geller is good for Jews and Israel? what do you think of her alliance with Spencer?
Explain..
allah approved misogyny is one of many severe problems with islam which is dangerous no matter how it is packaged...
the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
see the links in the pdf version below for more accurate info about islam
==========
islam is a horrible ideology for human rights
5 key things about islam
1. mythical beliefs - all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.
2. totalitarianism - islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.
3. violence - islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.
4. dishonesty - only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo's peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.
5. misogyny - present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.
conclusions ??
there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.
islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
Post a Comment
<< Home