Honor killing in Dallas suburb?

Dear Mr. Dreber:
If this is an Honor Killing by the father, then he must be a conservative in his value system.
President Puten, in Russia, is considered a very good conservative in his politics and in his religion.
So, is a rose by any....
Sincerely,
J R Dittbrenner

Prosecuting the perpetrators of these heinous acts against female family members -- to the full extent of our Western laws -- is necessary to "protect the community" from barbaric practices.

There is no honor in killing daughters, wives, sisters, nieces -- ever, anywhere.

Karen Tintori, author
"Unto the Daughters: The Legacy of an Honor Killing in a Sicilian-American Family"
www.karentintori.com

Any murder requires swift legal repercussions. It is not just a horror because a Muslim (allegedly) did it.

There are honor killings in the Western world, too. Any guy who pops his gal in, say, Brazil, can use the "she dishonored me" defense and likely get acquitted, if he goes to trial at all. (It's only those nasty feminists who object...)

When Somali immigrants first came to this country we learned that they were inflicting traditional genital mutilation on little girls. The law was swift to make it clear that it is not allowed in this country. While it still may happen, the Somali community knows that there will be consequences.

Um, Joel, did I not say in the posting that the police don't have a motive yet? This story is leading the news here in Dallas, and I think it's fair to speculate on what the motive might be, given the history of honor killings.

To the best of my knowledge, Obama's father was a Muslim, but Obama himself was raised Christian. Hence, he is not a "Muslim apostate" but rather a man with Muslim relatives.

As far as this crime is concerned, I believe it is too soon to speculate. There has been a virtual epidemic of fathers, sometimes estranged or divorced fathers, shooting their entire families and then themselves in the Frederick, MD area (where some of my family live) in the past year or so, but none of the perpetrators have been Muslims.

I don't think this is about religion, I think it is about control. Even in honor killings that have occured in the U.S., these killings appear to happen because the fathers feel they are losing control of their children, often because the children are becoming Americanized.

Ever since I first encountered the concept of honor-killing while watching "Zorba the Greek" it has been an injustice capable of sending me into a white-hot rage. I believe it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But it is also a human tragedy.

Obama has been pretty open about the fact that he wasn't raised a Christian. His birth father (who left the family when Barack was a baby) was a Muslim and so was his stepfather. But Obama's mother was an agnostic who made sure Barack was exposed to many different religious traditions, though she adhered to no religion herself. Barack came to Christianity on his own, as an adult.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_violence_christian_non_violence_people_in_glass_houses_should_not_th/0015352

Muslim Violence, Christian Non-Violence: People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Words

Sheila Musaji
Posted Dec 27, 2007

Muslim Violence, Christian Non-Violence: People in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Words

by Sheila Musaji

Recently, someone who had visited The American Muslim site sent me an email with links to a couple of articles and asking me to explain why all the violence in the world involved Muslims.

The first article “The Difference Between Christianity and Islam” emailed to me by the reader made the “point” that: Christianity has evolved and civilized to where violence is not the norm, but a very obscure abnormality. Where as violence for Muslims is a daily occurrence, and a sought after means to their ends.

The other article said that: “… the way of God, the One true God, Whom Islam tries to use to lay claim to its legitimacy, is wholly different than that of Muhammad and Allah. The way of the God of Israel, as most pointedly exemplified by His incarnation and appearing as the Lord Jesus Christ, is about laying down the life for others, not about taking others’ lives for oneself in the name of an imaginary and bloodthirsty god. Jesus Christ demonstrably did not come to set up an earthly Kingdom by material conquest. He told His followers that His Kingdom was not of this world. He instructed them not to fight back with the sword when threatened for their faith, much less did He lead them to go out and subjugate mankind with carnal weapons of coercion, be they political, economic, psychological, and least of all, military. He laid down His life, even unto death by crucifixion, and showed everyone that the Kingdom of God is not about the things of this world. It is not about the things that Muhammad and Muslims scheme over, fight over, and even dream of and promise to the ignorant and susceptible as their reward in Heaven if they will sacrifice their bodies while murdering and destroying. What a diabolical religion!”

I could chalk these articles up as the ramblings of a few nut cases. I could assume the fallacy and hypocricy in these statements was obvious to all Americans--but it is obviously not. Here are a few statements from important figures in the U.S. government and military, for example:

“Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” said John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the U.S.

Maj. Gen. William Boykin declared that he was ”God’s Warrior” and that “America is a Christian nation.” He demeaned the entire Muslim world by stating that his God was bigger than a Muslim warlord’s god and that the Muslim’s god “was an idol.” And, he said all of this in uniform.

Let’s look at the premise that “violence is not the norm” in Christianity. How to measure something like this is tricky, but this was certainly not true throughout large portions of history. Whether it is true today is arguable. One look at our our cities, our schools, or even our homes, and violence by Christians, and every other group, is apparent. Since 9/11, there has been a rise in hate crimes against minority groups, and the aggressors often identify themselves and their motives as being Christian. Looking at the bigger picture, what country is the primary supplier of weapons to the rest of the world? Hint: it is not a Muslim country. What country has the highest military expenditures per capita of any country on earth? See previous hint. Which country has proposed bombing other countries into the stone age? The answer to all three is the US, which no one would identify as a Muslim country. Those who developed and dropped the atom bomb were a multicultural group--but none were Muslim. Looking outside the US, where have arguable violent and repressive systems like fascism, communism, and Naziism been produced? Not in Muslim countries. Was it Muslims who carried out the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides? Are the Italian and Russian mafias Muslim? Are the South American drug cartels Muslims? Who talks about sanctions, pre-emptive strikes, invasions? Who allows the torture of Muslims in various secret and not-so-secret prisons. What religion was Timothy McVeigh? The IRA?

So, the idea that ALL violence or terrorism is Muslim is laughable. All these examples show, as would a simple glance at any collection of court-documents, that there is an unfortunately common occurence of violence today, and it does not all involve Muslims (not even close). By population, violence is an aberration found in EVERY group.

In the first half of this decade, from 1990 to 1995, 70 international states were involved in 93 wars which killed five and a half million people.(5) Most of the casualties were civilians, noncombatants. At the beginning of this century, most of the war casualties were military (85-90%). In World War II more than half of all war deaths were noncombatants. Today, at the end of the twentieth century, more than three-fourths of all war deaths are civilians.(6) (Source) Were any Christians involved in these wars? Of course.

Jesus may have asked his followers to lay down their lives for others and to concern themselves with the heavenly kingdom and not to fight with the sword — but the reality of the last 2,000 years has not been typified by such actual behavior except in the case of small groups like the Amish and the Quakers. More typical have been clergy like Charles Stanley, “pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. “We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible,” said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers.” In an article carried by the convention’s Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that “American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Stanley was not alone as a number of other clergymen and their flocks supported the war in Iraq. “As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular “Left Behind” series, spoke of Iraq as “a focal point of end-time events,” whose special role in the earth’s final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that “God is pro-war” in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004. The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president’s decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian “just war” theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.

As Chris Stephen pointed out in an article entitled ‘Praise Bush and the Iraq war’ ”Cornerstone Church, a vast squat white temple in San Antonio, is rapidly becoming the movement’s epicentre, thanks to the charismatic founder, Pastor John Hagee, the rising star of America’s TV evangelists. For these evangelists, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but the beginning of the fulfilment of biblical prophecies that culminate, possibly very soon, in a mighty struggle between good and evil at Armageddon. ... “Listen up, president of Iran,” booms the pastor. “We are going to be your worst nightmare, Mr Ahmadinejad. The pharaoh threatened Israel, he ended up fish-food in the sea. When you say Israel is going to disappear in a sudden storm you may be predicting the way you disappear.”

Other articles have pointed to the same sentiments being common among certain segments of the Christian population of the U.S. Jim Lobe wrote an entire article on the subject: Conservative Christians Biggest Backers of Iraq War.

Sounds a tad bit violent to me. And, even those who declaim the violence are not adverse to benefitting from it. Max Blumenthal in Onward Christian Soldiers comes to the conclusion that: “Conservative fundamentalists with close ties to President Bush are planning a new missionary push in Iraq—and they might already be converting U.S. troops to their cause.” Is basing a missionary campaign in the ashes of violent endeavors a form of “subjugation” or a “carnal weapon of coercion” like that which the second article ascribed to Islam?

This “positive” missionary aspect has been widely discussed. For example: Christian Missionaries Battle For Hearts and Minds in Iraq; Bible Belt missionaries set out on a ‘war for souls’ in Iraq; Why Iraq Beckons Missionaries; God and Country; War in Babylon has evangelicals seeing Earth’s final days

This response is to the concept that violence is somehow unique--or even more common to--Islam than to other religious groups. It is currently common to EVERYONE. Addressing the moral and ethical arguments that revolve around the concept of “justified violence” is a separate matter all together. If your response to this article is that some violence is justified, you have missed the point. However, in this author’s opinion, the message of Jesus Christ was correct. Violence is not the answer. Indeed, if people of faith (every faith I can think of) were to follow the actual teachings of their scriptures (not some crazed pastors’ or imams’ distorted agenda), then the current violence would end. No legitimate representatives of any faith can both follow the teachings of their faith and preach violence.

"Christianity, while encouraging its adherents to hone their virtues, purify their spirits, and live by God's law, is a forgiving faith that hinges not on legalism but on God's grace."

Thanks for reminding us of that, Margaret. All too often on this blog, especially in the comments, one gets the impression that modern Christian conservatives forget about that.

"Thanks for reminding us of that, Margaret. All too often on this blog, especially in the comments, one gets the impression that modern Christian conservatives forget about that."

And those helpful commenters on the left are sure to beat us over the head with tales of our intolerance, bigotry and all around evilness. Thanks for your help guys, sometimes we evangelicals forget we are the scum of the earth.

Christ was all about paying the cost of your life if need be to uphold the highest ethical and moral standards, while forgiving all slights against yourself and remembering God's mercy towards you when you contemplate the wrongdoing of everyone else. This radical viewpoint is often lost in a legalistic system which many factions of Christianity cling to - Evangelical and Catholic alike. In other words, most of us fall short of Christ's guidance. We are great hearers, and repeaters, of his words. We are not so great at putting them into practice.

Where do these persistent stories of Obama being Muslim come from? His father was Muslim, but his father A) wasn't around for most of childhood, and B) wasn't practicing anyway. Not even a super conservative Muslim could accuse a person with one Muslim parent, divorced in early childhood from the one who raised him, and raised as a nominal Christian, of apostasy.

Uh, but where was my point in all this? Oh, the proposed honor killings. Let's hope that's not what happened here. That would be a terrible thing. It's terrible wherever it happens. Such outdated practices don't even have a leg to stand on under Islamic Jurisprudence - and I'm one who doesn't think Shariah law should stand unaltered any more than Abrahamic Law should (or I'd be advocating stoning rebellious children!)

These are pre-Islamic tribal practices, which unfortunately many Islamic powers have found convenient to foster and further. Islam only asks that women dress modestly, and outlaws adultery. This complete division of the sexes in public life, and "honor" killings for any girl who, however innocently, is perceived to break the customs, is not Islam. It is cruelty, misogyny, pride, and merciless injustice. I'm sure I could think of a few more choice words, but I'll leave that to your own imaginations...

Again, I sincerely hope this is not a case of such a crime.

Oh, I hope this wasn't a dishonor killing. There is a case in suburban Chicago that is looking very much like a dishonor killing (three died), so this would be five American dishonor killings in just a few days.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

MargaretE and AnotherBeliever,

I wish I'd waited for your posts before I shot off my response. Thank you both for your reflections.

Posted by: elizabeth | January 2, 2008 4:14 PM

My pleasure, Elizabeth. These exchanges are what keep me coming back to this blog like an addict! I have no one in "real life" with whom to discuss such issues, and I value the conversation here more than you can imagine. Even when it gets a little contentious. (And even when it does, it's still the most civil blog around!) So, thank YOU, too.

"You don't have to be Muslim to murder your children"

No, but it helps.

I'm trying to understand the why of honor killing. Is it due to some religious exhaltation of pre marital virginity? Or is it due to refusal to economical support a young woman who has lost her value on the marriage market and the consequent strengthening of the extended family by even appearing less than virginal? Did any other people --neither Jewish, Christian, or Moslem--place such a value on virginity that they would kill a woman suspected of having lost it before marriage? She could no longer " sell", and, as long as she was alive her blood sisters were suspect to the further detriment of the family? As a Christian I know that a Christian woman who had lost her virginity before marriage could have been forgiven athough her economic future in bygone times would have been dismal. If she had been in danger of being deflowered violently she might be honored as a martyr for resisting to the point of death, possiby even to the point of suicide. Had all her resistance availed her nothing, and had she been raped in the end, would she have had any more value than a spinster in Christian hagiography?

Why this "worship" of female virginity in all three patriarchal religions to the point that in at least one of them today a woman who even appears to break the taboo is deemed deserving of death? Is this worship from God or is it from Mammon?

Magaret, I've read that Yancey book no less than ten times. In fact, I re-read the chapter you referenced, "...Lucky are the Unlucky", just last night.

Coincidentally, on my way home tonight (before reading this combox), I stopped at a bookstore to buy yet another copy for a friend. Great book, indeed.

Please do not criticize the Islamic religion because that is like insulting and discriminating against 1.5 billion Muslims. You cannot attack Muslims because of Islam. Muslims are faithful towards their religion. So by criticizing Islam, you are attacking each and every Muslim on this planet!

Muslims believe in Islam earnestly and sincerely. Is there any higher proof that Islam is correct and the only true religion? Muslims will even commit suicide to affirm the righteousness of Islam. When you criticize Islam, you are discriminating against those people who out of the goodness of their hearts have submitted to Islam. You are attacking ordinary people by criticizing Islam or its last Prophet (and hence the most correct Prophet) of mankind.

Besides, Islam is 100% correct. Why? Because Koran is the literal word of God. Why is it the word of God? Because its the words of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Why is he right? Because the Koran says he is God's Prophet. Case closed.

Islam is 100% correct and anyone criticizing Islam is trying to fight with Allah. That is why Muslims must defend Allah from the attacks of the unbelievers, until the unbelievers are vanquished and either convert to Islam and submit to Allah's representatives on earth, or they remain dhimmis and have to pay extra tax to support Muslims.

Dear Mr, Dreber:
I do not mix religion and politics! Islam is both a religion and a political system complete with their own Laws; a state enacts its own laws. Their system of laws are not enacted by legislation but on commentaries over the centuries by their scholars and by local tradition. King Saud did not disagree with the court's verdict on the number of lashes but had to bow to Western pressure. That is one of the reasons most Muslim nations continue to have political turmoil as to who's on first; they have no set of legislative law enactments and courts to enforce their election. The Quran set down laws to guide one from birth to death. The concept of the for ever hero as the warrior is also set down as 'holy rite':
Putin, to you may be a radical but then you are not a Russian. It is to the Russian that he is a conservative. He - his government - and the church are a lining themselves; their phrasing, “The New Rome” is the same as under the Tsars. At the present they are a mutual association of interest.
Sincerely,
J R Dittbrenner

Why this "worship" of female virginity in all three patriarchal religions to the point that in at least one of them today a woman who even appears to break the taboo is deemed deserving of death? Is this worship from God or is it from Mammon?

Ha, good luck pointing out that the sexist assumptions 'in Islam' are also present in Christianity, also, and that the punishment for adultery is, in fact, death, and that said punishment almost always applied to the women and not the men.

Yes, we don't 'honor kill' people anymore, but if it hadn't been for the sexual revolution, we'd still be talking about how 'dishonored' such non-virgin women were.

When, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is totally unsupportable scripturally. Having sex once is no worse a sin than shoplifting a candy bar, but if some woman shoplifted a candy bar and then admitted it, she wouldn't be marked for life as 'impure'.

It's 'selective enforcement', it's making a sin two or three orders of magnitude worse than another sin solely because of patriarchal concepts about the ownership of women. This is, I suspect, one of the reasons we aren't supposed to be judging sin, because we'll pick sins we personally don't like to condemn. Or sins solely done by an underclass we can demonize and not 'us'. (Of course, women were not having sex by themselves, but somehow the men involved just got ignored.)

Both Islam and Christianity need to get rid of their vestigial sexist. Christianity is much much further along this path, but actually happened much more recent than people think. It dates back to the sexual revolution, not the enlightenment. We're talking 45 years, not 300.