Father, sons drowned teen daughter over her ‘Western lifestyle’

[ThatRobGuy]

Honor killing is explicitly contrary to Islam and Sharia law. It is as much a problem for Islamic culture as it would be here.

I linked the Zina laws before, and how certain interpretations have led to the honor killings being "authorized"

They didn't get the idea from thin air.

When you have some verses that tie conservative Islamic views of sexual fidelity to "honor", and then in a different part of the book, outline where Muhammed himself sentenced people to death for infidelity, it's not like it's some wild idea they came up with that has no linkbacks to the texts.

If in an alternate universe, in the bible, it said that Jesus was maligning gays... and in a few chapters down the road, said "you have a moral duty to publicly speak out the things I've said are bad", nobody would be shocked if 60% of fundamentalist Christians ended up like the Westboro Baptist people instead of just the fringe few there are today... and nobody would think it was controversial to link the doctrine to the behavior.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But why is it that only one particular flavor of religious fundamentalism seems be the one that's most prone (more than the others) to advancing itself to the level of Authoritarian Theocracy in places where it's majority?

There are 5 full-blown actual recognized Theocracies on the planet right now, all are of the same religion (Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Mauretania)

And if you expand the scope look at nations that have an officially codified state religion (which is a slightly softer form of Theocracy):
Islam - 27
Christianity - 9 (used to be more, but many of disestablished in the past 70 years)
Judaism 1
Hinduism 0 (Nepal was the last one, but disestablished and went secular in 2006)


Islam seems to stand alone as the one that trends toward the direction of consolidation of religious and political power where the others trended away from it over the long term. (and that's a unique thing about their texts as well, their religion was one that was designed to be enforced with state power right from the get go, which makes sense considering Muhammed was doing double duty as both a religious and political leader)


The "all religions have their fundamentalists and their extremists", while semantically true, seems to do nothing more than obfuscate the issue.

If Mike is having 4 beers per day and occasionally shouts at his wife, and Dave is 15 beers per day and slaps his wife around on a weekly basis... simply saying "well, both households have someone with alcohol abuse issues that are impacting their marriages, so we can't really say that one is worse than the other" is intellectually dishonest.

I doubt it's more prone to any of this. The difference is that Islam is predominant in areas of the world ravaged by colonialism, with low levels of education, and without a strong tradition of liberal democracy, so its fundamentalist sects have had a rather unique opportunity and an easy time taking over.

I don't doubt for a moment that some Christians would seek similar practices if given the opportunity. Heck, right now, the Secretary of DefenseWar is tweeting out stuff about how women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. A few hundred years ago, the Puritans may have been known for their work ethic, but they also executed heretics and "witches."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Have you forgotten the Vatican?

I guess you can count that...given that the population is < 900 people and they're all employees of the Church, it's more reminiscent of a "company town" than it is a real country.

A lot of that is nothing but reaction. For instance, I can remember when Iran was a secular state with a popular socialist prime minister who we overthrew and replaced with a secular dictator bent on imposing Western cultural values. How did that work out for us?

Much better until the Islamic revolution overthrew the Shah.

While the Shah may have been a puppet for the US, conditions for women and free thinkers was certainly better under the Shah that it was under his predecessors and successors.

Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace prize winner) lived under both sets of conditions.

Her story was one where under the Shah, she gained the ability to attend law school, and became the first female judge in Iran in 1976. Only to have that title stripped after the revolution and appointed to be the clerk (of the very same court she once led) due to Women no longer being allowed to be judges.

While she's written a few books... her piece called "I thought the Iranian Revolution would bring freedom. I was wrong." is probably the most impactful

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, most of us can agree that 1979 was not the time for a revolution. What we needed was modest reform, not the total destruction of the system we had. In fact, toward the end of the Pahlavi dynasty, we seemed to have the right conditions for a meaningful transition. The Shah was ill and had appointed Shahpour Bakhtiar, who had spent many years of his life fighting for liberal democracy, as prime minister. Yet we never gave him a chance.

Like many others, I soon started to pay a heavy price for the changes. I had been the first female judge in the era of the Shah. Under the Islamic republic, however, the authorities deprived me of the position; in their view, a woman was not capable of sound legal judgment.

Yet even this was not the main source of disappointment. I was ashamed of my own contribution to a revolution that went on to cause so much human suffering.

Our shortsightedness resulted in what we see today. Over the past four decades, many of our youths have sacrificed their lives to compensate for our mistake.

Forty-one years on, I am deeply sorry that you still have to pay such a high price for the mistake we made. I hope you can forgive me and the many others who succumbed to the thrill of revolution and did not think about the implications of their actions.

 

[BCP1928]

I doubt it's more prone to any of this. The difference is that Islam is predominant in areas of the world ravaged by colonialism, with low levels of education, and without a strong tradition of liberal democracy, so its fundamentalist sects have had a rather unique opportunity and an easy time taking over.

I don't doubt for a moment that some Christians would seek similar practices if given the opportunity. Heck, right now, the Secretary of DefenseWar is tweeting out stuff about how women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. A few hundred years ago, the Puritans may have been known for their work ethic, but they also executed heretics and "witches."

The difference here is that we live in a secular Constitutional Republic where our own brand of fundamentalism can't get a grip. Although we apparently must oblige them by killing anonymous alleged drug smugglers as long as it's in foreign waters.

 

[DaisyDay]

The problem seems to be patriarchal societies that don't allow women autonomy.

 

[BCP1928]

I guess you can count that...given that the population is < 900 people and they're all employees of the Church, it's more reminiscent of a "company town" than it is a real country.

Much better until the Islamic revolution overthrew the Shah.

While the Shah may have been a puppet for the US, conditions for women and free thinkers was certainly better under the Shah that it was under his predecessors and successors.

Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace prize winner) lived under both sets of conditions.

Her story was one where under the Shah, she gained the ability to attend law school, and became the first female judge in Iran in 1976. Only to have that title stripped after the revolution and appointed to be the clerk (of the very same court she once led) due to Women no longer being allowed to be judges.

While she's written a few books... her piece called "I thought the Iranian Revolution would bring freedom. I was wrong." is probably the most impactful

Today, with the benefit of hindsight, most of us can agree that 1979 was not the time for a revolution. What we needed was modest reform, not the total destruction of the system we had. In fact, toward the end of the Pahlavi dynasty, we seemed to have the right conditions for a meaningful transition. The Shah was ill and had appointed Shahpour Bakhtiar, who had spent many years of his life fighting for liberal democracy, as prime minister. Yet we never gave him a chance.

Like many others, I soon started to pay a heavy price for the changes. I had been the first female judge in the era of the Shah. Under the Islamic republic, however, the authorities deprived me of the position; in their view, a woman was not capable of sound legal judgment.

Yet even this was not the main source of disappointment. I was ashamed of my own contribution to a revolution that went on to cause so much human suffering.

Our shortsightedness resulted in what we see today. Over the past four decades, many of our youths have sacrificed their lives to compensate for our mistake.

Forty-one years on, I am deeply sorry that you still have to pay such a high price for the mistake we made. I hope you can forgive me and the many others who succumbed to the thrill of revolution and did not think about the implications of their actions.

Quite right, but the religious reactionary revolution was not just due to the fact that the country was Muslim.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I doubt it's more prone to any of this. The difference is that Islam is predominant in areas of the world ravaged by colonialism, with low levels of education, and without a strong tradition of liberal democracy, so its fundamentalist sects have had a rather unique opportunity and an easy time taking over.

I don't doubt for a moment that some Christians would seek similar practices if given the opportunity. Heck, right now, the Secretary of DefenseWar is tweeting out stuff about how women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. A few hundred years ago, the Puritans may have been known for their work ethic, but they also executed heretics and "witches."

What area hasn't been ravaged by some form of Colonialism?

One could make a sound argument that Latin American countries, to a larger degree, and much more recently, have been impacted by that. Western interests were still meddling in their governments (in a big way, up to and including CIA backed coups) as recently as the 80's and 90's.

That's an area that's heavily Catholic, and many areas down there suffer from poverty and lacking educational systems.

Why do we not see Catholic Theocracies down there enforcing Catholic law with the strictest possible interpretation, using the absolute harshest penalties known to man for minor infractions?


Can we at least agree on the fact that of the two texts, the tone and "hero" of the story in Christianity is a much more benevolent and "softer" type of person, whereas the "hero" of the story in Islam was something of a warlord with ambitions of conquest?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Quite right, but the religious reactionary revolution was not just due to the fact that the country was Muslim.

While the "reaction of revolution" may have had nothing to do with the religion itself (the Islamists just so happen to be the ones willing to lead the revolt), the immediate move to consolidate political power with religious power (and the subsequent removal of rights from certain groups) had everything to do with the religion that took it over.

Hugo Chavez and his peeps were a group that came to power via revolution (due to people being disenfranchised with the level of US puppetry that was going on with the in-power players at the time, with the popular support of the young people -- much like what occurred in Iran)

Despite being a devout Catholic, he didn't immediately try to consolidate political and religious power.

...primarily, because his book doesn't prescribe it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem seems to be patriarchal societies that don't allow women autonomy.

If that's true, then it's even more telling.

After 200+ years of institutional power and their religion being on a social pedestal, our most "patriarchal" conservative Christian political power brokers look like radical feminists in comparison to what happens after 5 years of Islam controlling a country.

 

[rambot]

What area hasn't been ravaged by some form of Colonialism?\

England. France. Germany. Spain
The colonial powers.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"A Muslim father and his two sons tied up his teen daughter and drowned her in a swamp because they believed her “Western behavior” was shaming their family, according to Dutch prosecutors.

The body of Ryan Al Najjar, 18, was found gagged, bound with tape and submerged in a marsh May 28, 2024, six days after she vanished from the family’s home"

‘Cowardly’ father, sons drowned teen daughter over her ‘Western lifestyle’: officials

Her male relatives allegedly murdered her after she adopted a “Western” lifestyle that included her refusing to wear a headscarf, associating with males and using social media.

nypost.com

We have the same honor killings nearby in Dearborn, MI. It is really sick that a family will murder one of their own family.

Romans 9:3
for my own people. They are my brothers and sisters, my earthly family. I wish I could help them. I would even have a curse on me and cut myself off from Christ if that would help them.

Hebrews 11:7
Noah was warned by God about things that he could not yet see. But he had faith and respect for God, so he built a large boat to save his family. With his faith, Noah showed that the world was wrong. And he became one of those who are made right with God through faith.

Matthew 10:20-22
Easy-to-Read Version
20 It will not really be you speaking; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking through you.

21 “Brothers will turn against their own brothers and hand them over to be killed. Fathers will hand over their own children to be killed. Children will fight against their own parents and will have them killed. 22 Everyone will hate you because you follow me. But the one who remains faithful to the end will be saved.

Luke 21:16
Even your parents, brothers, relatives, and friends will turn against you. They will have some of you killed.

 

[rambot]

We have the same honor killings nearby in Dearborn, MI. It is really sick that a family will murder one of their own family.

Are you serious?

It's literally THE most common murder: a loved one.

I mean, I'd agree it's messed up to murder your own family members. But THAT is the messed up part; the reasoning behind it is inconsequential to me.

 

[BPPLEE]

'Belligerent' man allegedly pointed gun at group of 12-year-old Christmas carolers

An adult man was accused of pointing a gun at a group of 12-year-old Christmas carolers who were going door-to-door to spread holiday cheer.

local12.com

That's not assault, that's menacing and I fall to see how it has anything to do with the OP

 

[Landon Caeli]

Are you serious?

It's literally THE most common murder: a loved one.

I mean, I'd agree it's messed up to murder your own family members. But THAT is the messed up part; the reasoning behind it is inconsequential to me.

London England:

The Metropolitan Police (Greater London) has recorded a high number of general "honour-based abuse" (HBA) incidents. In 2021-2022, they documented 1,213 cases, which included two attempted murders, 32 rapes, and 310 cases of forced marriage.

‘Honour-based’ offences soared by 81% in last five years | Crime | The Guardian ‘Honour-based’ offences soared by 81% in last five years

....As the Muslim population increases, 'honor offenses' increase. Facts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you serious?

It's literally THE most common murder: a loved one.

I mean, I'd agree it's messed up to murder your own family members. But THAT is the messed up part; the reasoning behind it is inconsequential to me.

I'd argue that the reasons are especially important if there's a pattern at play as opposed to random acts of lunacy.

I suspect that if this was discussing some of the pitfalls of any text/ideology of any other religion apart from Islam (which some people want to extra-insulate from the same criticisms they'd provide to any of the others), people would have no problem linking the doctrine to the behavior, and attacking the doctrine for it.


If this were a conversation about say, gay-to-straight conversion therapy and the psychological damage is causes, and it was pointed out that in the context of the US, 90% of that stuff goes on specifically within the realm of the southern evangelical denominations.

Would your stance be "the reasoning behind it is inconsequential, the fact that it's happening is the messed up part" (in a way that doesn't point fingers at any group/ideology specifically, or connect certain dots)?


With regards to people handling certain things with kid gloves, I've always thought a good exercise is to do a honest litmus test with one's self.

Take any criticism that people make against Islam (that a more progressive person may object to)
For example:
"In Islamic areas of the Middle East, Muslims execute gay people, and 30% surveyed think death is the appropriate response for leaving the Islamic faith"

And pretend the same stuff was hypothetically going on from a group that they don't have any reservations about criticizing, and do a simple word replacement, and see if they'd still object to the criticism in the same way:
"In conservative areas of the rural Arkansas, Southern Baptists execute gay people, and 30% surveyed think death is the appropriate response for leaving the Christian faith"


We know the answer to that question right???

The answer obviously is if that stuff was hypothetically going on in Arkansas, nobody on the left would have any reservations about both identifying the ideology as a major cause, and criticizing the ideology (and whatever political movement that was aligned with that ideology) for being complicit in the problem.

I think Sam Harris summed it up nicely on Real-Time when he made Batman cry (Ben Affleck)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People have been trying to draw the link to "western colonialism" as some sort of destabilizing factor that allows fundamentalist Islam to take over in a region.

Allow me to bring up the following nations as a counterpoint:
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan

They were member states of the USSR (about the most "anti-West" "anti-Western Christian" entity that's existed in the last century -- they had state imposed atheism as a governing principle and their bedrock ideas were based on opposing "westernism" in efforts to create an equal society where "the bourgeoisie couldn't oppress the proletariat" and tearing down any oppression based on superficial characteristics)

What happened to the rights and treatment of women, gay people, and free thinkers in some of those countries after the Soviet Union dissolved and removed their influence from the area, and countries that were >75% Muslim were left to their own devices again to govern how they saw fit?

 

[Hans Blaster]

With regards to people handling certain things with kid gloves, I've always thought a good exercise is to do a honest litmus test with one's self.

Take any criticism that people make against Islam (that a more progressive person may object to)
For example:
"In Islamic areas of the Middle East, Muslims execute gay people, and 30% surveyed think death is the appropriate response for leaving the Islamic faith"

And pretend the same stuff was hypothetically going on from a group that they don't have any reservations about criticizing, and do a simple word replacement, and see if they'd still object to the criticism in the same way:
"In conservative areas of the rural Arkansas, Southern Baptists execute gay people, and 30% surveyed think death is the appropriate response for leaving the Christian faith"


We know the answer to that question right???

The answer obviously is if that stuff was hypothetically going on in Arkansas, nobody on the left would have any reservations about both identifying the ideology as a major cause, and criticizing the ideology (and whatever political movement that was aligned with that ideology) for being complicit in the problem.

From your example, clearly Arkansas has a cultural problem. The SBC is the largest denomination in the vast majority of counties through the entire Confederacy (excepting southern Texas, Louisiana, and Florida) plus Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From your example, clearly Arkansas has a cultural problem. The SBC is the largest denomination in the vast majority of counties through the entire Confederacy (excepting southern Texas, Louisiana, and Florida) plus Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

Okay, so if that stuff was going on at that level in Arkansas (it's obviously not, a woman or gay person wanting better treatment would obviously be better off in Little Rock than they would in Tehran), you're saying you wouldn't have any issues with frankly and bluntly identifying the cause and effect.

So why do so many have an issue issuing the same blunt critiques against Islam and instead opt to shill for them and offer "other religions have extremists too" defenses to deflect?

Obviously there's the cynical theory, which is "if a religion is primarily comprised of people with more pigment, we need to defend them against bad racist white people at all costs", but to give the benefit of the doubt, do you have any alternate theories on that?

Sam Harris said it pretty well "My fellow liberals have failed us on the topic of theocracy, they'll only criticize white theocracy. They'll still get agitated about an abortion clinic bombing that happened in 1994, but when you point out that the Muslim world is lacking even more in this area, they'll accuse you of Islamaphobia"

 

[iluvatar5150]

What area hasn't been ravaged by some form of Colonialism?

One could make a sound argument that Latin American countries, to a larger degree, and much more recently, have been impacted by that. Western interests were still meddling in their governments (in a big way, up to and including CIA backed coups) as recently as the 80's and 90's.

Instead of honor killings, central and south america have extremely powerful drug cartels. Is that better?

Either way, the lack of honor killings in South America would also be consistent with it being a regional cultural thing rather than a religious thing.

Why do we not see Catholic Theocracies down there enforcing Catholic law with the strictest possible interpretation, using the absolute harshest penalties known to man for minor infractions?

Maybe the catholics worked that out of their system 1,000 years ago?

Can we at least agree on the fact that of the two texts, the tone and "hero" of the story in Christianity is a much more benevolent and "softer" type of person, whereas the "hero" of the story in Islam was something of a warlord with ambitions of conquest?

The hero in the New Testament, sure. The heros in the OT, definitely not.

People have been trying to draw the link to "western colonialism" as some sort of destabilizing factor that allows fundamentalist Islam to take over in a region.

Allow me to bring up the following nations as a counterpoint:
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan

They were member states of the USSR (about the most "anti-West" "anti-Western Christian" entity that's existed in the last century -- they had state imposed atheism as a governing principle and their bedrock ideas were based on opposing "westernism" in efforts to create an equal society where "the bourgeoisie couldn't oppress the proletariat" and tearing down any oppression based on superficial characteristics)

What happened to the rights and treatment of women, gay people, and free thinkers in some of those countries after the Soviet Union dissolved and removed their influence from the area, and countries that were >75% Muslim were left to their own devices again to govern how they saw fit?

I never said "western".

Either way, we were talking about honor killings, not this. There are hoards of Christians in the US right now who praise strict rules like that and would implement them in the blink of an eye if given the chance. Here's a sitting congressman who did just that:

GOP Congressman Traveled to Uganda to Give Speech Praising Anti-LGBTQ Death Penalty Law

The GOP lawmaker urged Ugandan leaders to "stand firm" against international opposition and condemnation of the law.

truthout.org

Those American Christians aren't better; they're just held in check by the rest of society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I never said "western".

Either way, we were talking about honor killings, not this. There are hoards of Christians in the US right now who praise strict rules like that and would implement them in the blink of an eye if given the chance. Here's a sitting congressman who did just that:

GOP Congressman Traveled to Uganda to Give Speech Praising Anti-LGBTQ Death Penalty Law

The GOP lawmaker urged Ugandan leaders to "stand firm" against international opposition and condemnation of the law.

truthout.org

Those American Christians aren't better; they're just held in check by the rest of society.

And why does our society have have the kind of provisions that hold guys like that "in check"?

I'll argue that there are not "hoards of Christians in the US that praise strict rules like that" in comparison to our overall population size.

The fact that one has to find a random congressmen from Michigan that most people literally have never heard of to invoke a myth of equivalency is telling.

So because 1 congressmen out of 435 supports a particularly draconian version of LGBTQ discrimination means that "it's a wash"?

If you had a scenario where a third of republican congressmen, a quarter of the senate republicans, most of the SCOTUS, and the president all praised Uganda's treatment of gays and "sexual infidels", then you may have something remotely approaching what's the "status quo" in Islamic theocracies (to enough of a degree that it's even worth bringing up as a point of comparison)

Can we just cut out the silliness here? lol

In terms of religious ideologies that cut against the rights of the groups that progressives claim to want to protect, there's one that stands head & shoulders above all of the rest in terms of violations.

Trying to create false equivalencies or contrived "every religions does it" talking points doesn't change reality.

Through an Islamic political lens, people like Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis would be considered "radical progressives" by their standards.

Why can we not acknowledge that and just admit that certain cultures are superior to others?

When the worst of one culture is lightyears better than the best of another culture (by consistent standards), that should mean something, yes?

DeSantis got maligned for banning books in Jr. high schools that visually depicted minors masturbating into a Mountain Dew bottle... meanwhile, in Islamic countries, replacing the death penalty for gays with prison sentences gets a standing ovation in the name of "progress".

#ClownWorld