Turkish girl, 16, 'buried alive by her father because she had friendships with boys'

[Cheryl & Medo 3]

Who could do this to one's own child? Dad needs to hung by the nads while someone scoops out his eyes with a spoon.

I AGREE

[Nasturtium 500]

QUOTE (Madame Cleo @ Feb 6 2010, 03:47 PM)

Periods are not 'unclean' and for a religion to suggest that a natural bodily function of a woman is 'unclean' is absurd, and I can't imagine why a western woman would go along with that and just say, "oh, that's just the way it is."

How does having a period prevent a woman from giving valid interpretations of religious material or to be able to function as an intelligent member of a comunity? Women are not sick when they have periods (Most women at any rate), they do not become stupid when they are having their periods, nor can they contaminate anyone else when they have their periods. Having a period does not render a woman unfit and unable to do any task at all. I have real difficulty with this concept, and can't find a rational way to validate it.

Religions suggest a lot of natural things are wrong. Why has anyone put up with that BS for centuries? I mean, sure, when most people were illiterate and it was a capital crime to publish the bible in a common language...sure. But since about the early 1400s what is the excuse? Religion should not have survived the plague, it is a wonderment it ever did. I lost interest in fairy tales when I was 6.

(sorry for the messy format... i do not like this new quote system.)

This is what I find the most bizarre about this type of argument, though. If you say that it is Biblically classed as wrong, where does it say that it is wrong in the Bible? This is the same behavior as Creationists with their long diatribes on how The Origin of Species/Darwin claimed that people decended from monkeys is wrong. Where did Darwin ever write or speak those words? Never, because that came from a Presbyterian minister. Having a period is natural, healthy, and totally not a problem religiously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Kurds are classified as an Iranian people.

Most Iranians are Muslims; 90% belong to the Shi'a branch of Islam.

True?

Not really, no. Generally speaking, the Kurds are mostly Sunni, but not all of them are Muslim.

Historically, there has been a lot of tension in Turkey between the Kurds and the Turkish state largely over the recognition of a separate, specifically Kurdish state. If you're looking for a parallel its not terribly different to the situation of the Basque separatists in Spain.

Caused quite a bit of trouble in Northern Iraq during the early part of the war.

[Nasturtium 500]

Women have rarely enjoyed access to power via religion or throne. I do think there is a huge correlation between access to power and position in society. Of course, I agree that it's not as simple as that, however, when religion, however inocently (if you view it that way) segregates women and men along biological lines, then the possibilty of abuse is merely a biblical verse away. Whereas, if no such segregation exists, the justification for all kinds of horrific behaviours is completely removed.

My proposition is this: those who wish to subjegate via misuse of religion would find another excuse if that were not available. It's their personal agenda to do so.

[Nasturtium 500]

Each religion can ascribe whatever meaning it likes to whatever state it wants to, but to suggest that there is inherently a meaning in any state is a function of religion, not a function of that state.

That state is a function of this particular religion and thus defined by such, regardless of if another religion chooses to similarly name their own concepts and states and defines them differently through coopting and twisting the concept and use.

(I think this may go down as being one of the most exchanges on VJ, not to be read without proper ammounts of caffeine).

Edited February 6, 2010 by julianna

[FortLaudy 10]

Not really, no. Generally speaking, the Kurds are mostly Sunni, but not all of them are Muslim.

Historically, there has been a lot of tension in Turkey between the Kurds and the Turkish state largely over the recognition of a separate, specifically Kurdish state. If you're looking for a parallel its not terribly different to the situation of the Basque separatists in Spain.

Caused quite a bit of trouble in Northern Iraq during the early part of the war.

Sunni Islam is the largest branch of Islam, comprising at least 85% of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

I don't think suggesting that this family is Muslim is far-fetched is what my point is. The girl's name is Medina, and besides the original post link, just about Every other link on this story says the family is Muslim. But not that "honor killings" exclusively happen in Muslim families, it's common in India too, but yes, certainly a problem in the Islamic world. Is it any of my business? I don't think so.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Sunni Islam is the largest branch of Islam, comprising at least 85% of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims.

I don't think suggesting that this family is Muslim is far-fetched is what my point is. The girl's name is Medina, and besides the original post link, just about Every other link on this story says the family is Muslim. But not that "honor killings" exclusively happen in Muslim families, it's common in India too, but yes, certainly a problem in the Islamic world. Is it any of my business? I don't think so.

for the record, i never thought the idea was far-fetched either since most kurds are muslim. but to use her name as a basis, or assume most kurds are shia since they are an iranian people is inaccurate. that's all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think the religion of the family has jack to do with the story. People want to assume that they're muslim because they have preconceived ideas that muslims do this sort of thing, and that there is something within Islam that justifies it.

Most of these things, IMO are motivated by sectarian and cultural issues specific to the particular community, rather than broad level theological ones.

When we used to talk about the problems Northern Ireland, you never heard people simply write it off as being the work of "savage Christians", what you did hear about were Nationalists and Loyalist.

Why is it that when it comes to other cultures, that we don't make similar conclusions about the nature of the issues?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

True. I just don't see why we should go interfering when they do too... no point whatsoever and a complete waste of time and resources, if they want change they will make it happen from within.

I agree. especially when they need to sell OIL to produce the only source of income to finance their killing each other. This will dump oil on the market and drop the price like it did when the Sunnis and Shi'as went to killing each other in 1980-88. (or whatever the reason was...who cares?) $10 per barrel oil...now that's what I'm talkin' about!

It was bad for Texas though and Bush couldn't let that happen again. Gotta keep that oil price up, gotta keep the mid-east stable. Obama is more bought off by special interests and will keep this up also to bolster the price of oil and heroin from Afghanistan. All we have to do is pull our troops out, let Iran and Iraq do the natural thing and BUY all the heroin in Afghanistan for three times what the drug dealers pay and then DUMP it in the ocean after keeping enough to be the world's premier supplier of medical opiates. The poppy farmrs will be our friends and the Taliban will sell...what? How will the Taliban get any money? We could make enough money off the national healthcare systems in the world to pay for our own healthcare! Oh and sell them bullets and other (very short range) devices to kill each other with. Plastic explosive...anyone?

But NO, we have to spend billions to TRY to eradicate the poppy crop which only makles the poppies more valuable and LOOKS like we are "doing something" and gives an excuse to continue fighting. Stupid. BUY it. The farmers grow it to SELL, we should be the only customer they deal with and be their FRIEND, not their enemy.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Having an Arabic name doesn't make one a Muslim. Black American Christians with Arabic names are common, as are Arab Muslims and Christians named Isa, which is the Arabic derivation of Jesus. There is no such thing as a Muslim name anyway, because the Arabic names that have become associated with Muslims were names that Middle Eastern pagans, Christians and Jews gave their children even before Islam reached the Arabian penninsula (it did not originate in the ME).

So, assumptions that honor killing is Islamic or that the family involved were following Islam by murdering their child come from ignorance. When I lived in South America in the late 70s and early 80s, honor killings were common among Brazilians, with men easily being excused for killing wives suspected of cheating. I remember that, in the US, it was not illegal for a man to kill his wife for the same reason around about the same timeframe. Ending honor killings was a goal of the womens' movement in this country for years. Know your own history before you judge others.

[FortLaudy 10]

http://www.***removed***/2008/08/pakistan...-for-honor.html

Pakistan: five women buried alive for honor

Sharia Alert -- we are constantly told in the West that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam, but Muslims somehow seem to keep misunderstanding that.

I've said this before, and I will keep saying it:

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "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).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?

"Five women buried alive in name of honour," from the PakTribune, August 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ISLAMABAD: Three teenage girls along with their two close elderly relatives were shot at before being buried alive in a desert of Balochistan by their tribesmen in the name of honour.

The shocking reports of this horrible incident reaching the capital from different quarters revealed that the girls studying in classes 10 to 12 intended to marry men of their choice through a civil court by defying the centuries-old tribal traditions. When the fuming elders of Umrani tribe came to know about the intentions of these girls to appear before a local court, they picked them up from their homes along with two of their elderly women relatives. The crying girls were pushed into official cars and driven to a deserted area. There they were pushed out of the cars, made to stand in a queue and volleys of shots fired at them.

As the bleeding girls fell on the sand, the tribesmen dragged them into a nearby ditch and levelled it with earth and stones before the girls could breathe their last. As the two shocked elderly women tried to rescue the hapless girls, they too were gunned down and buried in the same manner.

The killers after burying these women returned to their tribe like conquerors without any action against them. The step taken was to send a loud message to the rest of the tribe’s girls. Father of these girls lodged an FIR with the police against his own brother, who was said to be the architect of this crime. But after some family pressure, he withdrew the case and so the blood of those girls was forgiven in the name of centuries-old tradition, which does not allow any girl of the tribe to contract marriage of her choice.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Watch has accused Abdul Sattar Umrani, the younger brother of PPP Housing Minister in Balochistan Government Mir Sadiq Umrani, of being directly responsible for this shocking act of barbarianism....

________________________

The bolded part, is that truly written in the Koran?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The above post claiming that parents who kill their children are without fault is a lie. I am a Sunni Muslim with a PhD in Islamic law and jihadwatch is a scum, Muslim hating website that gives no insight to Islam.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[FortLaudy 10]

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "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).

Just that specific part, not saying the whole website is legit, it was just a google search and this popped up, it's really fascinating that most of these people convicted of "honor killings" do seem to get away with a very light sentence, does it have anything to do with what is written in the Koran on this topic?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One of the earliest condemnations of Arab culture given by the Quran is the practice of killing infant daughters. Islam condemns murder of innocents, period.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I remember that, in the US, it was not illegal for a man to kill his wife for the same reason around about the same timeframe. Ending honor killings was a goal of the womens' movement in this country for years. Know your own history before you judge others.

If you remember the 70's and 80's as a time when husbands were alowed to kill their wives in the United States then you are, to use a Bush-ism, clearly misremembering...

Edited February 7, 2010 by ready4ONE