Honour Killing - An Islamic Practice?

[Muslimwoman]

If we google honor killing we will find page after page of websites stating "Islamic Honour Killing", "Honour Killing is an abhorrent Islamic practice", "Islamic crime of honour killing", "Muslim honour killings", etc. I have also had to refute this on this forum a number of times.

This post is not an attempt to dismiss honour killings, indeed an abhorrent crime, usually against women, all too often practiced by Muslims but this post is an attempt to examine the claim or belief that this is an Islamic or purely Muslim practice, rather than a purely cultural one.

According to the report of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2002 concerning cultural practices in the family that reflect violence against women (E/CN.4/2002/83):

The Special Rapporteur indicated that there had been contradictory decisions with regard to the honour defense in Brazil, and that legislative provisions allowing for partial or complete defense in that context could be found in the penal codes of Argentina, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Peru, Syria, Venezuela and the Palestinian National Authority.

Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | 'Honour killing' father begins sentence

.

If we google the following names we will see that honour killings are not only a Muslim form of murdering a family member:

Faten Habash - Christian from Palestine
Miriam Atef Khella (shot and husband killed) - Coptic from Egypt
Doaa Fares - Druze from Israel
Geeta Aulakh - Sikh from London, UK
Sunita Devi and Jasbir Singh - Hindu from India

These are all horrific murders of young people by cultures who believe they can remove a blot on their communal or family honour by killing their own family/tribe members ... barbaric, yes ... a religious practice, no.

Religion remains an important part in many people’s lives, not least in those societies for ‘honour’ based violence. A majority (but by no means all) of current known cases arise in Muslim cultures or sub-cultures, leading some to conclude that there must be textual backing for the practice, and that therefore an ‘honour’ killing is a religiously mandated murder. Although some ‘honour’ killers do justify their crimes by their religion, many others act in the name of tribal, caste, class, nationalist or other identities. An ‘honour’ killing, seen as an act of vigilante murder, has no support in the key Islamic texts, and similar crimes have been recorded in Hindu, Sikh, Druze, Yezidi and some Christian societies.

Anatomy of honour-based violence | Stop honour killings!

I would rather die than lose my honour...Our whole life is founded on honour. If we lose it, we have no life, we become swine. If we lose our honour, we are just like swine. We’re no better than animals.

Sirhan, age 35, interviewed in ABC documentary The Lost Honor of Sirhan after serving a six month sentence in Jordan for killing his sister who had fallen victim to rape, 2003

This is the mentality we are up against and my problem with all the "Islamic honour killings" stuff is twofold:

1. It accuses Islam of something it is not responsible for, does not advocate and does not in any way approve of.

2. It allows the practice to continue because Muslims shrug and say it's not Islamic and then ignore it and non Muslims simply shrug and say what do you expect from Muslims and then ignore it. Honour killings are horrific crimes of murder and we must educate ourselves on the topic so we can educate others and stamp out this practice in the Middle East and Asia.

Brinda Karat, the AIDWA general secretary. "A large number of caste fatwas are being issued every year by the dominant castes in the country against inter-caste marriages. The most unfortunate part is that it is increasing every year,'' she claimed. Among the worst-affected areas are Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. In Muzaffarnagar district, 13 `honour killings' were reported in the first nine months of 2003, while in 2002 there were 10 such killings and 35 couples were declared missing by the police. "About 10 per cent of murders in Haryana and Punjab are honour killings,'' Ms. Karat claimed.

The Hindu : Victims of 'honour killings' recall horror

We also have to accept that honour killings occur in Western societies. We have both the temporary insanity and crime of passion plea in cases where a spouse is murdered due to infidelity. In such cases the murderer is often charged with manslaughter rather than murder. Honour is something our legal systems still recognises, even though we have moved on from it being a community issue.

 

[islamicway]

The same goes for female circumcisions. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[seattlegal]

This is only my opinion.

I believe so-called honor killings might have started as a means to appease the sense of shame resulting from trying to coerce a family member into doing something against their will. Let's face it, a guilty conscience certainly feels dishonorable. However, the sense of shame was then projected at the person whom was wronged, rather than being directed inward for self-examination. Scapegoating is a crime of arrogant pride and unrefined shame imo.

For whatever that might be worth.

 

[bob x]

It is most prevalent in a band from North Africa across southern Asia which overlaps Islam but is not co-extensive with it: aside from the Hindu areas mentioned in the OP, Sicily for example is another place where it is not uncommon. The cultural attitude is older than the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Amica]

It is an evil that must be stopped. How? I am not sure. Arab Muslims who practice it do not make a large percentage of the Muslim World Community and I am sure the rest of the Muslims, if united, could help educate that world about how horrible the murders are, and how especially unislamic they are.

 

[Abdullah]

India's Nirupama Pathak Case Raises Honor-Killing Debate - TIME

 

[Amica]

The honor killings come from the Old Testament. According to the Mosaic Law, daughters of priests who have sexual relationships before marriage are to be "honorably" killed.

Talking about Muslims not following Jewish traditions...

 

[Amica]

Biblical references of "honor" killings:

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

 

[bananabrain]

amica,

firstly, there is no concept of "izzat" in judaism; this is a false equivalence from the beginning.

secondly, judaism does not approve of these type of killings: you should read the story of dinah and how her brothers shim'on and levi killed the men of shechem, which is the closest equivalence; they were not praised by their father, but cursed for their violence - their acts were certainly not codified into the halakhah.

thirdly, please point to ONE instance that you know of where this type of "honour killing" has ACTUALLY HAPPENED under the sanction of jewish law. i bet you can't, because no such examples exist, compared to the practices that exist in backward cultures (some of which are in muslim societies, but by no means all) around the world, which are so prevalent that they are a) constantly in the news and b) have required legislation and special programmes to address the problem. there is no jewish equivalent, regardless of what you think the bible says.

fourthly, because you think you can find a "biblical reference" does not mean that the references you find are correct. i can assure you that if something was mandated in the Torah, people would still be doing it (i am observing verses 22:11-12 at this moment, for instance). all five examples you have given refer to completely different cases as can be seen by even the most cursory of looks:

1. this is not about the girl not being a virgin, it is about her committing adultery. she cannot have committed adultery before her marriage, unless she thereby contracted a marriage (which can easily be retroactively annulled on numerous grounds); besides, logically, this has to be about damages for her husband's slanderous accusations (see verses 13-14) as if it were actually adultery, she would instead be forced to take the "sotah" test of "bitter waters" and could only be punished by direct Divine action. consequently this is in no way to do with "izzat", but an illustration of the seriousness of slander.

2. the one from leviticus 21:9 refers, i believe, to someone who has actually seduced her own father; the amount of premeditation in such an act is clear from the language; her father is already prohibited from such activity by the incest laws, so the fact that such an extra provision is needed refers to quite an extreme case, where the guilt is beyond doubt.

3. the one from proverbs 20:20 is agreed overwhelmingly by the sages to refer to the spiritual harm that is done to one's soul by cursing one's parents; the language can hardly be said to imply court action, let alone a capital prosecution.

4. similarly, the conditions attached to the leviticus 20:9 provision are also prohibitive: the rebellious son is treated in more detail elsewhere and safeguards include the parents having also to concur in the punishment and the "son" being at least 40, a good old age back then and one at which your parents would be unlikely to be alive.

5. exodus 21:15 - look back from verse 12 and you will see that this is part of a general section about the penalties for murder. it is not the striking of the parent, but the murder of the parent. look at verses 18-21; here you can see that punishment is meant to be proportional.

these are not exhaustive answers, but nonetheless, in any case, you must also consider that *each* of the examples given would have to be enforced through a court that was empowered to try and convict capital offences and, if you ever read anything that i write, you will know that the possibility of gaining a capital conviction in halakhah is zero, due to the checks and balances instituted by the sages; compare this to the lack of compunction that some so-called islamic courts seem to display in their rush to put people to death.

i am bound to ask - where do you keep picking this stuff up? i can only assume that the sources of your ongoing religious education keep feeding you misinformation about judaism, which means that you really ought to consider whether they are trustworthy, or merely, as i suspect, [gulfie and saudi-funded] islamist propaganda. where did you get this list from? did someone suggest it to you?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Amica]

Shalom Bananabrain,

No, I cannot point to an actual example in the modern history because hebraic Judaism of biblical times is different in many ways from the modern Judaism. The followers of the modern Judaism have abandoned a lot of practices respected and believed in the ancient Judaism. So, I think it would be accurate to say that modern Judaism does not approve "honor" murder practices, but it was practiced by the ancient Hebrews as authorized by the Old Testament. And I do not think what Bible says, I did provide verses directly from the Old Testament.

You say that the cited references I found in the Torah are not necessarily correct. So, are you saying that the Torah has mistakes within it? If so, then is the Qur'an's statement that SOME of the Jews have corrupted Torah true? On the other hand, just because Jewish people do not observe some of the Torah's teachings, should not make Torah incorrect, no? For example, if a group of Muslims observes something different than the Holy Qur'an instructs (in this case the "honor" murders), does not make the Noble Qur'an incorrect.

1) No, the first Deutoronomy reference I cited specifically indicates that the young bride must have been a virgin upon the first marriage consumation. It is instructed that if it was determined that on the wedding night she was not a virgin, she is to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, for she came unchaste from her father's house. She dishonored her father's house, according to the verse. Very clear. No double meaning there.

2) The Leviticus verse is also very clear, and that one talks about adultery by the priest's daughter. Different from the virgin mentioned in the Deutoronomy. I am not understanding how you came into the "incest" idea from it, but then again I am not versed in Hebrew--maybe you could clarify this. I am not getting it: the girl raped her own father? Or the father raped her?

From both of the references one comes to the conclusion that the ancient Jews were instructed to: 1) punish a girl who loses virginity before marriage with stoning and 2) to punish already married adulteress with burning to death.

3) The Proverb verse I cited, I give you a credit for, as it can have shades of various interpretations.

4) Both male and female--it says "all", according to the Leviticus reference I cited, are to be punished to death/capital punishment for cursing parents. Very clear there too, unless Hebrew language states it differently.

No, there is no "saudi" style propaganda fed to me. I have a Bible, with OT and NT together. It is in English. So, I am able to read it only in English. I do not speak Hebrew. And my apologies if I am missing understandings of verses should the Hebrew version be different.

I guess what I was trying to say all along is that the so-called "islamic" laws are not coming from the textual authority on Islam, the Holy Qur'an. No where will one ever find punishment of stoning, female circucisions, capital punishments for apostasy or such in the Holy Qur'an. My only guess is that those who created those "islamic" laws have used the OT sample of (mis)understandings of the Mosaic Law as cited there and came up with an "islamic" version. Whether the OT verses are the way that I cited them, or if Jews understand them differently today, is beside the point. My point was that those so-called "Sharia" law makers are eager to take the OT instructions for their own purpose.

 

[Amica]

Take for example, the growing of beard. It's not too terrible, but no where in the Holy Qur'an is it mandatory for a man to grow a long beard. Yet, some Muslims believe it is an "islamic" law for a man to have a long beard and they get angry if a Muslim man shaves. Weird. Some people are more obsessed with the Hadiths than they are concerned with abiding with the Holy Qur'an.

I am not anti-Hadith, as I believe some good teachings and practices (such as how to perform formal prayers) are positive. But, I think we Muslims should look at many Hadith with a critical eyes, use our reason (as Qur'an instructs) and then decide whether a hadith is islamic (in accordance with the Noble Qur'an) or not. Blind obsessions with the hadiths have caused World Wide Muslim community a lots of pain, especially Muslims sisters.

 

[bananabrain]

No, I cannot point to an actual example in the modern history because hebraic Judaism of biblical times is different in many ways from the modern Judaism.

*behaviours* are different, the *context* is different halakhic *decisions* are different, but the Torah remains the same; what you are objecting to is a specific type of act. i have just shown you that not only do modern jews not carry out such acts (in contradistinction to muslims and others) but that the sources that you suggest support such acts do not in fact support them. your point in posting them in the first place seems to be to suggest that so-called "honour killings" are inspired by the Torah, which i think is utterly ridiculous. do you suggest that the *good stuff* muslims do was learned from the Torah? of course not - only the crimes. i suggest you examine your motives for doing so.

The followers of the modern Judaism have abandoned a lot of practices respected and believed in the ancient Judaism.

no, we have not. "honour killing" was *not* "respected and believed in"; if you do not understand how jewish law works, or the texts concerned, i do not see how you can maintain such a canard. we have simply interpreted the text concerned correctly, in accordance with jewish law.

And I do not think what Bible says, I did provide verses directly from the Old Testament.

which, as i have said, you clearly have not understood, hence you "think you understand" what "the bible" says, but in fact, you do not, despite quoting directly.

You say that the cited references I found in the Torah are not necessarily correct. So, are you saying that the Torah has mistakes within it?

you have misunderstood once more. it is *not correct* that the references you cite refer to what you describe as "honour killing". they refer to other situations. you do not understand the texts that you have referenced. that is not the Torah making a mistake - it is you making a mistake about what the references actually refer to.

If so, then is the Qur'an's statement that SOME of the Jews have corrupted Torah true?

you cannot possibly expect me to find this observation anything but offensive, considering how i have written on it in the past.

On the other hand, just because Jewish people do not observe some of the Torah's teachings, should not make Torah incorrect, no? For example, if a group of Muslims observes something different than the Holy Qur'an instructs (in this case the "honor" murders), does not make the Noble Qur'an incorrect.

nor does it make Torah incorrect if people don't understand what it is saying and act how they think it means, not what it actually means. this is precisely my point.

1) No, the first Deutoronomy reference I cited specifically indicates that the young bride must have been a virgin upon the first marriage consumation. It is instructed that if it was determined that on the wedding night she was not a virgin, she is to be stoned at the entrance to her father's house, for she came unchaste from her father's house. She dishonored her father's house, according to the verse. Very clear. No double meaning there.

the difference in meaning is given by the *context*, in this case the fact that similar situations are described elsewhere in the Torah. the Torah does not deal in redundancies and the fact that the "sotah" procedure is not here mentioned indicates that something else is going on. this approach is apparently not something you are familiar with, but it is fundamental to jewish understanding of text.

2) The Leviticus verse is also very clear, and that one talks about adultery by the priest's daughter. Different from the virgin mentioned in the Deutoronomy. I am not understanding how you came into the "incest" idea from it, but then again I am not versed in Hebrew--maybe you could clarify this. I am not getting it: the girl raped her own father? Or the father raped her?

again, this is firstly a case of context; we hardly need reminding that incest is wrong and, looking at the surrounding verses, these are concerned with conduct and qualifications of the hereditary priesthood, not adultery. this is therefore a special case involving priests. similarly, the hebrew here can be read in a number of different ways, because there aren't commas; the hebrew reads something like: "if she prostitutes herself [ET] her father she profanes his name she shall be burned", where "ET" is a linkage-word with no clear linguistic function, but a strong signifier of interpretation; if it implies "with", it is very different from anything else; it does not say, for example, "if she prostitutes herself [WITH anyone]"; i don't think it implies rape, though, from the wording.

From both of the references one comes to the conclusion that the ancient Jews were instructed to: 1) punish a girl who loses virginity before marriage with stoning and 2) to punish already married adulteress with burning to death.

but one would NEVER limit one's investigation of the context or application of the laws to those two verses, even if they were unambiguous, which i've already shown you they're not.

4) Both male and female--it says "all", according to the Leviticus reference I cited, are to be punished to death/capital punishment for cursing parents. Very clear there too, unless Hebrew language states it differently.

the point is, though, that that verse alone is not the total that would be considered in this case - particularly given its seriousness. there would be a huge number of other verses considered, as well as the laws which are derived from them, this is not a protestant bible class where you read one verse and decide what it means. that is simply not how jewish law works, any more than you can read one clause in any other legal code and understand its total application and context.

No, there is no "saudi" style propaganda fed to me. I have a Bible, with OT and NT together. It is in English. So, I am able to read it only in English. I do not speak Hebrew. And my apologies if I am missing understandings of verses should the Hebrew version be different.

ok, well what is happening is that you are looking at the following:

if x
and y
but not if a
and b
and c
and d
and e
unless f
and g
and h
then z

and saying aha, well, "condition y" is there, so we get to "z". obviously we do not, unless you have considered all the other stuff. are you seeing what i'm saying? it's not just about the hebrew, it's about the *other stuff you also have to know*. you can't look at one part of an engine and know how to drive a car.

I guess what I was trying to say all along is that the so-called "islamic" laws are not coming from the textual authority on Islam, the Holy Qur'an. No where will one ever find punishment of stoning, female circucisions, capital punishments for apostasy or such in the Holy Qur'an. My only guess is that those who created those "islamic" laws have used the OT sample of (mis)understandings of the Mosaic Law as cited there and came up with an "islamic" version. Whether the OT verses are the way that I cited them, or if Jews understand them differently today, is beside the point. My point was that those so-called "Sharia" law makers are eager to take the OT instructions for their own purpose.

i don't see it like that. what this is is a bunch of people taking a penalty that they think is appropriate, perhaps because "that's how they used to do it", or "a bunch of people who were really cool do it" and then *reverse-engineering* shari'a and interpretation of Qur'an to find authority for their actions, selectively allowing the most extreme examples to be considered; as you say, they may imagine this stuff is from Torah, but if they a) have never read it or b) don't understand it or, even worse, c) think it has been changed/corrupted, it hardly makes sense to cite Torah as authority, unless the purpose is to blackguard and attack judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Amica]

Bananabrain,

You just proved my last point throughout your post. By pointing out my (mis)understandings of how Jewish law works, or how Jews work on understanding it, you actually proved me right in my saying in how some of the "islamic" laws used by some Muslims around the world have been created. And the highest textual authority on Islam, the Noble Qur'an, absolutely shows NO proof for any of those laws, such as stoning for adultery or 'honor' killings.

I am sorry if what I wrote came off as me saying that all evil some Muslims commit around the world is because of Jews or Judaism. Everyone is responsible for their actions and I do not blame Jews for anything. But here is the reason I said it:

Qur'an teaches that Jews received Allah's SWT Revelation, the Torah, and Muslims must believe in that. The "honor" killings are an ancient practice that has been practiced among the non-Jews, such as Romans. Those who wished to make "honor" killings an islamic law could not affirm it as such by adopting a pagan practice. They had to look somewhere else where such act is mentioned in some way. The Old Testament proved to have something to offer. And since Muslims are taught by the Qur'an that Torah was a previous Revelation, no Muslim dared to object to the practice as people punishing in such way is documented in the Old Testament.

You are right. I do not understand Jewish Law. But little that I read about Halakah, it does not force one into abiding it. Rather, a person must consent to it. Today's version of "sharia" however forces one in obedience and there is no consent. That is why, majority of Muslims who have to follow such "sharia" cannot object to punishments such as stoning, despite it being not a commandment from the Holy Qur'an. Because the mullahs and Saudi-style imams can always point to the OT and say: well God revealed it then. Regardless whether Halakah actually requires stoning, "honor" killings of adulterers or such. That is beside the point to these people because they do not care about the way Jews go about the Jewish Law.

I hope you get what I was trying to say. I am not trying to offend you. I am just trying to show how men who create "sharia" laws go about "confirming" anti-islamic laws.

 

[Amica]

Sister Muslimwoman,

In the ancient times the stoning has been practiced by non-Muslims long time ago. It was well alive in the non-Muslim lands even during the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. But, today, it is the Arab Muslims that are major offenders. They do not find evidence for "honor" murders in the Qur'an, so the evil minds among Arabs invented hadiths.

Here is one that will prove to Bananabrain, too, what I was talking about:

Hadith Sahin, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, "What do you (usually) do with them?" They said, "We blacken their faces and disgrace them." He said, "Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful." They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, "O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves." Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death and, and they were stoned to death, and I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones. (See Hadith No. 809, Vol. 8)

And one of the MOST interesting hadiths, from Sahih Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

 

[bananabrain]

By pointing out my (mis)understandings of how Jewish law works, or how Jews work on understanding it, you actually proved me right in my saying in how some of the "islamic" laws used by some Muslims around the world have been created. And the highest textual authority on Islam, the Noble Qur'an, absolutely shows NO proof for any of those laws, such as stoning for adultery or 'honor' killings.

that's interesting - so you're saying that those are entirely derived from hadith and sunnah and none whatsoever from the primary text?

I am sorry if what I wrote came off as me saying that all evil some Muslims commit around the world is because of Jews or Judaism.

it did seem unlike you!

The "honor" killings are an ancient practice that has been practiced among the non-Jews, such as Romans.

that is certainly not disputed by us.

Those who wished to make "honor" killings an islamic law could not affirm it as such by adopting a pagan practice. They had to look somewhere else where such act is mentioned in some way. The Old Testament proved to have something to offer. And since Muslims are taught by the Qur'an that Torah was a previous Revelation, no Muslim dared to object to the practice as people punishing in such way is documented in the Old Testament.

oh, i see. so, basically, it is fraudulent misrepresentation of our sacred text to sanction something that your sacred text doesn't sanction? i think that's pretty low, but it is encouraging that you can see through it. however, i should tell you that the standard tactic adopted to get out of this hole, rather than being an acknowledgement of the fault within the islamic interpretative tradition, appears to be the recourse to the argument that the Torah is corrupt - this, i hardly need remind you, is about as popular with us as insulting muhammad is with your mob; it upsets us just as much, albeit nobody tends to get stabbed as a result.

You are right. I do not understand Jewish Law. But little that I read about Halakah, it does not force one into abiding it. Rather, a person must consent to it.

that is certainly how it is supposed to work, but unfortunately, sometimes that's not quite the case.

Today's version of "sharia" however forces one in obedience and there is no consent. That is why, majority of Muslims who have to follow such "sharia" cannot object to punishments such as stoning, despite it being not a commandment from the Holy Qur'an. Because the mullahs and Saudi-style imams can always point to the OT and say: well God revealed it then. Regardless whether Halakah actually requires stoning, "honor" killings of adulterers or such. That is beside the point to these people because they do not care about the way Jews go about the Jewish Law.

i think that is scandalous.

i think i do now get what you were trying to say. i am surprised you are not furious about it.

Hadith Sahin, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, "What do you (usually) do with them?" They said, "We blacken their faces and disgrace them." He said, "Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful." They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, "O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves." Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death and, and they were stoned to death, and I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones. (See Hadith No. 809, Vol. 8)

ok, so here, this appears to be muhammad deciding to have recourse to stoning, but that is not what the jews actually recommend! in fact, what is done here is in complete violation of the halakhah by the jews - and, furthermore, he makes it even worse by applying the capital punishment without any of the safeguards! this really does explain a lot. as reluctant as i am to criticise muhammad in this forum, this is not the act of a perfect prophet in receipt of Divine Revelation, unless the hadith itself is fraudulent, but thank you for bringing it to the discussion.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Amica]

I brought the hadith to the attention to prove my point: in order for some to make stoning a law, they had to invent certain hadiths to support it. The more I read of the hadiths, the more and more I am convinced that the majority are fabricated. Not surprisingly, the ones that cause Muslims to engage in what I view anti-Islam practices, such as stoning, contradict the Qur'an as well. One good thing to remember for Muslims, but also non-Muslims who wish to challenge, is that there were NO hadiths in existance (at least not in a written form) during Prophet Muhammad's life. Even the Hadith collectors document in a couple of hadiths that Prophet Muhammad pbuh forbade Muslims from writing anything from him if it is not Qur'an. Even Aisha r.a. (Prophet's youngest wife) was quoted in the Hadiths as saying that writing hadiths are wrong. Yet, to her and to Prophet Muhammad many hadiths have been attributed. So, who is wrong? You ask a Muslim in Arabia and they would equate Hadiths to the Qur'an, as both being divine source. When, the only text in Islam that is Divine Revelation is Qur'an. And no Muslim can ever dispute the fact that Qur'an is Divine Revelation.

 

[Amica]

Originally, there were hundreds of thousands of hadiths collected by hadith collectors such as Bukhari. These early writers (writing about 100 years after Prophet Muhammad pbuh) scrutinized the hadiths further and determined that few thousands are worth taking seriously. That is a small number considering how many were originally collected. Then, Muslims created a full studies of Hadith collections so that these days the hadiths are classified as: sound, good, weak, and fabricated. An average Muslim is told which hadith classifies as what and an average Muslim has no means to actually investigate what is true and what is not. Muslims in the Arab countries are discouraged to challenge Hadiths based from the Qur'anic perspective for fear of being declared an apostate. Because, for many dictatorships in the Arab world questioning Hadith is equal to questioning belief in Allah SWT Himself. And this is wrong. How long will it take Arabs to actually stand up, take their Qur'ans in their hands and actually point to the wrongs of many Hadiths, I do not know. All I know is that the Qur'an should be the authority on what Islam should be. Everything else must be in accordance with the Qur'an in order to be accepted.

 

[Amica]

And again, I quote one of the most revealing hadiths:

And one of the MOST interesting hadiths, from Sahih Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

For those Muslims who believe, or are required by the state to believe Bukhari hadiths to be 100% true, then the above hadith should be an eye-opener.

 

[salishan]

"I would rather die than lose my honor ... Our whole life is founded on honor. If we lose it, we have no life, we become swine."
- (Sirhan, age 35, ... after serving a six month sentence in Jordan for killing his sister who had fallen victim to rape, 2003)
This is the mentality we are up against and my problem with all the "Islamic honor killings" stuff is twofold:
1. It accuses Islam of something it is not responsible for, does not advocate and does not in any way approve of.
2. It allows the practice to continue because Muslims shrug and say it's not Islamic and then ignore it and nonMuslims simply shrug and say what do you expect from Muslims and then ignore it.
Honor killings are horrific crimes of murder and we must educate ourselves on the topic so we can educate others and stamp out this practice in the Middle East and Asia.

Muslimwoman
exquisite creature

i cannot begin
to imagine the complex of emotions u must feel , here

my first reaction to this topic is personal
& visceral

i sleep-around
which any modern self-respecting single woman
has a perfect right to do
& anyone who thinks there is something wrong with my conduct
is going to get a royal tongue-lashing from me
it's my business , it's private business
so butt-out !
(et cetera , et cetera)

i have scruples
i have a private rulebook i live by
an ethical software which guides my conduct

nobody owns me

certain members of my family may not like my conduct
(they worry for me)
but kill me because of it ?
that is unimaginable (to me) !

though i no longer practice the faith i was raised in
(American Society of Friends , Hicksite branch)
i am deeply fond of religion
each modern religion contains flecks of deep-meaning (to me)
(flecks which are not easy to locate in pure form
difficult to distil-out from
all the accompanying secular/cultural sediment-layers)

honor-killing is not religious conduct
it's cultural ! (& vile)

(end of story , or should be)

my second reaction to the topic is more impersonal
(& is filtered thru a lot of neural networks)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, are you saying that the Torah has mistakes within it? If so, then is the Qur'an's statement that SOME of the Jews have corrupted Torah true?

You should look up the term 'non sequitur'.

Parenthetically, it is interesting (and sad) that you would seek to transform a good thread on honor killing into an anti-Jewish polemic.