One of the most popular targets for Islamophobe’s when criticizing the Islamic faith is the act of ‘honor killing’. I have put the term in quotes for two reasons: there is no literal reference to it in any holy book and because it has arguably evolved into a phenomenon in the modern era. The importance of this analysis rests not in suggesting that this religion or that religion does or does not justify the idea of ‘honor killings’ but rather its concern for changing the way you perceive them and its critical examination of the various religious texts that motivate them.
The topic of ‘honor killings’ has become increasingly controversial with the recent report that a newly converted Christian girl refused to return to her Muslim home after running away for fear that she would be killed for the preservation of the family’s honor. Many ideologically driven commentators have in-turn suggested that the act of ‘honor killings’ is unique to the Islamic faith and only to the Islamic faith. They argue their claim is fact by pinpointing passages in the Qur’an for legitimization.
These commentators, however, are attempting to serve their own self-fulfilling prophecies. If you picked up a Qur’an with the preconceived notion that Islam teaches the practice of ‘honor killings’, you could certainly find a justyfying passage for your beliefs. This reality however is no different if you were to do undergo the same process with a Bible. In Deuteronomy 22 13-22 of ‘The Good News Bible, 2nd edition’ (pg. 187), you will find a passage about ‘Laws concerning Sexual Purity’.
‘Suppose a man marries a young woman and later he decides he doesn’t want her. So he makes up false charges against her, accusing her of not being a virgin when they got married’… ‘…if the charge is true and there is no proof that she was a virgin, then they (men) are to take her out to the entrance of her father’s house, where the men of her city are to stone her to death. She has done a shameful thing among our people by having intercourse before she was married, while she was still living in her father’s house. In this way you will get rid of this evil’.
This passage almost certainly describes what an Islamophobe would consider an ‘honor killing’. Pick your reason (the media is one), but ‘honor killings’ have been considered strictly an Islamic act without serious consideration for similar passages in other religious texts. It seems that ideologically driven commentators have used ‘honor killings’ to portray Islam as the immoral or ‘dark’ religion while insinuating the moral superiority of their own religion. This type of selfish behavior is cancerous and maligns a population that contributes significantly to the American experience.
Critics of this entry would argue that while the Qur’an and the Bible may both justify ‘honor killings’, only Muslims actually conduct them. This is simply an inaccurate statement. In essence, we never really hear or comprehend of non-Muslim ‘honor killings’, partly because of the media’s Islamic construction of them and partially through our own ignorance and bias.
The bottom line is that anyone could potentially kill for honor. Is it not an ‘honor killing’ if a Christian man kills his son’s murderer? Does the Christian phrase ‘an eye for an eye’ not motivate Christians to commit violent acts under the guise of ‘honor’? Are these not double standards?
Though the term ‘honor killings’ has become loaded and misleading, it is not inconceivable to argue that both the Qur’an and the Bible contain passages that justify ‘honor killings’. On this premise, it is safe to state that passages from different holy books highlight why one religion is no more evil than the other is.
Here is proof that terrorism is blind to race, religion, or ideology.
About one year ago, I had the chance to meet with the Muslim community in Columbia, Tennessee with Jonathan Hayden and Frankie Martin as part of the Journey into America project with Professor Ahmed.
We sat down with them for a few hours one afternoon. Here is a bit of their story.
In 2007, a young group of white supremacists burned downed a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee. They wrote racist things like ‘white power, we run the world’ and identified with the Christian Identity Movement.
Here is a moving passage from Jonathan Hayden about the irony of the story:
One of the things that struck me about in speaking with the community was the irony of it all. We’ve found a range of feelings towards Muslims in our travels. A lot of good words and thoughts, some negative. Some think all Muslims are terrorists. As Daoud said, they were now the ones attacked by terrorists. His child had been mocked in school, called a terrorist and teased mercilessly, as children often do to one another. It was a hard thing to hear—a child, the victim of terrorism, being called a terrorist.
This is an especially important thought in light of the recent Fort Hood shootings. In its aftermath, many critics of Islam spoke out and claimed that ‘all Muslims aren’t terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’. Now that you’ve heard this story, hopefully you won’t ever make the mistake of repeating that stupid statement.
The story is not totally depressing though. In the wake of the attack, local Christian leaders reached out to this Muslim community as a sign of solidarity and affection. A true Christian doesn’t criticize Islam and doesn’t believe his religion is superior to others. A true Christian is one that ‘love’s thy neighbor’ in the true spirit of Jesus.
It has just been reported that one of the men will be spending 14 years in a federal prison.
You can check out a short documentary and a blog about our visit here.
This piece was just recently picked up by the USA Today.
Liberals and lefties can’t stand her. They find her uneducated, overly religious, and homophobic. Conservatives and righties love her. They see her as the guardian of Christian values, the true patriot, and ‘tough as nails’.
But can we all just take a step back for a minute? Can we critique her in her (in)ability to think on her toes and for her (lack) of skills in coherently putting together an argument to a tough situation.
Read the following conversation between Palin and Katie Couric during the 2008 presidential race. Keep these questions in mind: 1) did she answer the question?; 2) did her answer make sense?; 3) did she provide a coherent and structured response?; and 4) does she sound ‘presidential’?
Just a sidenote, I transcribed the conversation literally. I didn’t edit anything. This is her word for word response.
Katie Couric: Why isn’t it better governor Palin to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries, allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Sarah Palin – that’s why I say, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in, where it is taxpayers looking to bail out, but ultimately what the bailout is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping…its got to be all about job creation to, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track, so health care reform and reducing taxes and reigning and spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as competitive scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity, all of these things, under the umbrella of job creation, this bailout is part of that.
In the words of Smokey from Friday ‘what the hell did you just say?’
Like me, I’m sure you found her response completely and utterly irrelevant to the question. It sounds like Palin has no idea what the hell Curic even asked her. It also looks like she has a bowl of chocolate pudding in her underpants.
So back to the question. Why don’t Americans like Sarah Palin? Conservatives and righties love to tell you that ‘you just hate her because she is a strong woman’ or ‘your a socialist and a communist, that’s why you don’t like her, because she stands up for democracy’. Rightttt. Or even more hysterical, ‘you don’t like Sarah Palin because you aren’t a true American’. That is definitely the best one I’ve heard. I don’t even know how to respond to such absurd questions.
I think I can speak on behalf of many Americans. She is disliked because, well, she sounds like an idiot. Period.
She was given a tough question during a Presidential race on TV broadcasted to millions of Americans and floundered worse than Bill Buckner in the 1986 World Series. She butchered the question. You seriously couldn’t have asked for a worse answer. It made no sense whatsoever.
I don’t dislike Palin because she is super conservative, loves guns (member of the NRA), was a member of The Assembly of God church (this sounds scary), that she has practically no experience in foreign affairs (Russia as a neighbor doesn’t count Sarah), or that she thinks ‘Creationism’ is real and should be taught in our schools.
I don’t like Sarah Palin because she is incompetent, incoherent, and unqualified to hold any position of leadership. I seriously think my mother would be a better candidate than Sarah. No joke.
Are you telling me that Michelle Obama wouldn’t destroy Sarah Palin in a debate? Who would sound more presidential? Who has a better understanding of the problems this country faces?
Sarah Palin skates by and is popular because of her ideologies, not her leadership skills. And certainly not for her intellect.
Americans don’t like Palin because she comes across as stupid. To be honest, it’s that plain and simple. How can someone that gave that response ever be the president of the US, let alone the president of a damn local library.
When conservatives or righties blast you for slandering Palin and bashing her senselessly because you’re a liberal lefty, just show them this blog and have them listen to her response to Curic’s question.
I can’t believe that I even have to write such an article. I always find myself asking ‘how did we get here?’ with Sarah Palin. How is she such a sensation? What is happening to the world!? (haha). If she is the type of 21st century politician we have to grow accustomed to, count me in on NASA’s first colony expedition to Mars.
Out of sheer curiosity this afternoon, I began a Google search to study Herman Von Rompuy, the new council president of the European Union. An article from the Financial Times titled ‘Van Rompuy against Turkey membership’ was the first to appear. The article included a quote from Von Rompuy that outlined his personal characteristics, his policy initiatives, the current (and heated) debate within the EU political circle, and nevertheless European identity:
Turkey is not part of Europe and will never be part of Europe…an expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion, as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigor with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey’.
There appears to be several underlying themes with Von Rompuy’s speech. One is that Europe has a fixed Christian identity and that Europeans must maintain it. Another is that Islam is intolerant of difference and that it is incompatible with Western philosophical traditions. Third is that Von Rompuy is, like many other Europeans, suffering from a serious case of Islamophobia.
What Von Rompuy’s selection as council president represents is the EU’s smoldering identity crisis. The white, Christian ‘in-group’ that has historically dominated the continent is constructing a European identity against the Muslim ‘out-group’ through the institutional mechanisms of the EU.
These developments raise several imperative questions. Is the EU upholding its constitutional vision of secularism that ‘respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations of communities in Member States’ (EU Declaration) or is the EU returning to its ethnocentric tendencies by turning outwards (or inwards) against those of non-European origin simply out of fear?
It is important to note the several deficiencies with Von Rompoy’s statement for clarification. One is that Turkey is geographically and culturally not European (how is Cyprus geographically situated in Europe but Turkey is not?). Simply checking the archives of the Ottoman Empire can dispel such cultural myths. So can the Muslims in Turkey that identify as Muslims and Europeans. It also appears that Von Rompoy treats Islam as a monolith (which it is not). He seems to associate the intolerant actions and beliefs of certain Muslims as representative of the entire ummah and Islam. His overall assessment seems driven by ideological preferences. Sadly, he does not even suggest a potential state of coexistence.
Aside from his distortions of Islam, it seems like Von Rompoy’s policy initiative contradicts the meaning of the EU itself. The motivation was to quell ethnic and religious conflicts, not enhance their likeliness. Its institutions are secular by design and give no supremacy to any particular religion whatsoever. To claim that the EU is a Christian institution is a dangerous precedent that is also downright unconstitutional.
Much like the history of the US, the EU is now dealing with the ramifications of ‘the contradiction syndrome’. Does the EU adhere to its founding documents or does it return to the same mentality and realm of conflict that led to the institutions’ creation in the first place?
Von Rompoy’s selection as council president reinvigorates Europe’s long-standing rivalry with Islam that dates back to the Crusades. The ‘supranationalism’ in Europe (with Muslims as the primary enemy and the definitive ‘Other’) has not only alienated Europe’s own Muslims but has also raised Muslim concerns worldwide that the EU is intolerant of difference.
What is happening in Europe today politically is essentially no different from what occurred throughout its turbulent past: nationalism that is rooted in historical, racial, and religious ideologies is rising and can potentially explode if not handled appropriately. Whether the EU works to prevent or promote the ‘clash of civilizations’ remains to be seen.
Von Rompoy’s selection as council president is a step in the wrong direction. It does not seem ‘European’ to me. The saliency of the EU’s political culture and identity is undergoing serious challenges through the primordial movement. Would Tony Blair have been the better choice? Though his track record is questionable (Iraq War) he may have aligned more with the EU vision of tolerance.
On Twitter for the last few days, a self-proclaimed ‘radical Christian evangelizer’ (also a Marine) by the name of @Vanburenjrmr and I have been exchanging serious blows on our thoughts of Islam, Christianity, religion, terrorism, and the general outlook on life alone. My elders and mentors tell me not to even interact with such morons, but how could I resist? People like this must be confronted for the sake of humanity.
Before I get into the details, I must say that I tricked him (inadvertently) into thinking that I was a Muslim. He probably figured I was one because I appeared to be defending Islam, when all I was really doing was dissecting every single foolish, ignorant, and sometimes psychotic comment he made (actually, 95% were psychotic). We often battled on what ‘the truth’ meant – he arguing that Christianity and The Bible was ‘the truth’, while I argued in the Socratic Method (‘I know I do not know’) with a pinch of anti-religious sentiment.
Actually, I lied to you. I do know that I know (just this one thing, I swear). I know that @Vanburenjrmr is an ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted danger to society. I also know he is completely retarded for even assuming that he knows what ‘the truth’ is (ignorance?). The whole ordeal began when I called him an ‘idiot’.
I told him ‘the country was in seriously trouble if people like you are representing it’. I called him an idiot because he ranted on about how Islam is ‘an evil religion’. People will bash me on this one for being un-patriotic. After all, this is a soldier ‘who is protecting my freedom’. I don’t buy that crap. My definition of patriotism does not rest in this Marine. He also isn’t protecting my freedom. He is actually making more enemies around the world with his attitude.
He continued to ramble on, FOR THREE DAYS, citing all these historical events, passages from the Qur’an, etc…etc, that highlight why Islam is ‘Satan’s religion’ (all of these comments were based in interpretation, as most religious convictions are). He also thought Muslims were pedophiles, zoophiles (didn’t even know what this was until he said it, you should look it up).
Here are some of @Vanburenjrmr really messed up direct quotes:
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘You can’t defend that Islam isn’t a sick religion, top to bottom’
Sure I can, if I had a year I could write a book on why Islam is not a ‘sick religion’ top to bottom. Many thoughts initially pop into my head (which I gave back to him). Islam recognizes Jesus as a Prophet. Saying Islam is a sick religion is like suggesting that respecting Jesus is sick (he often claimed I bashed Jesus). And what about the quote from the Qur’an ‘The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr’ (a favorite of mine)). And seriously, if Islam is a sick religion, why have they produced great human beings? I have personally been lucky enough to have a mentor as one. Are you telling me he (Akbar Ahmed) is evil because he is a Muslim? These statements are not coherent. Blah, blah, I could go on and on.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Men having sex w/ animals, children, & men is common’.
Man, what a crazy statement! Not sure how to approach this non-sense, but here goes. Men having sex with men happens everywhere and is not specific to Islam (not meant as gay bashing, but go to San Francisco – tell me how regular it is there). Men having sex with children also happens everywhere (this is very disturbing, especially the cases where children are locked away for years and forced to have sex with their fathers). To suggest that Islam tells Muslims to do this is ridiculous. Having sex with children isn’t a religious thing – it’s a psycho, sexually deprived thing.
To claim that Muslims have sex with animals? Explaining this is beyond my capacity. Not sure I should be telling you this, but I knew someone who once said that he had sex with his dog. Based on that alone, having sex with animals is not unique to Islam because this guy was no Muslim. The point is, the @Vanburenjrmr associates such things only with Islam and not other religions (in fact, religion has nothing to do with it). He thinks the Qur’an tells Muslims to do this. Unreal.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Islam is still degrading to women’
The topic of women is the number one ‘basher’ for people that hate Muslims. They argue that Muslim men oppress there women and that they make them where the hijab, blah blah, etc etc. It is important to note that some Muslim cultures do degrade women, but degrading women is really a problem with humanity, not just Muslims. Take porn for example. America is rampant with it. They love it. Is showing a woman in the doggystyle position in a threesome not degrading (to her, her family, her friends)? And please, don’t give me the ‘it’s a women’s choice what to do with her body’. Non-Muslims degrade women as well! They don’t have to degrade women, but they sure choose to.
His points show how little he knows about the subject. Many Muslim women wear the hijab by personal choice (for many reasons I don’t feel like getting into). And how about Bhutto – she was president of Pakistan. Kuwait also just passed a law allowing women to hold a seat in Parliament. The list can go on and on, I just named the one’s that popped into my head. Really, one can see that Muslim women are degraded, yes, but Muslims aren’t the only ones doing so. Ever been to Vidgals.com? Has Jenna Jameson ever been degraded by a Jew or Christian? So much for Islam being the ‘king’ of degrading women.
@Vanburenjrmr: ‘Religion of peace, my ass’
Again, another favorite line for psychos that hate Islam. Muslims have been peaceful and violent throughout history, but tell me – which religion hasn’t?
This exchange lasted a few hours. I threw it right back at him and asked – are there any religions of peace? This is a touchy subject for me because I’m fairly anti-religion, and I don’t want to get into a philosophical rant, but here me out.
Violence is not unique to Islam. Christianity is guilty, and so is every other single damn religion. The Crusades, Gun Powder Plot, KKK, I could go on and on. The reason why I argued with him was not to bash Christianity but rather to alert him to his distorted perceptions and absurd claims. When I brought up the Crusades, by the way, he said they did not matter because they happened 1,000 years ago. Amazing.
Jesus would be so pissed at this guy.
There are many, many more ridiculous statements, but it’s 3:45 am, and I’m not even sure why I’m still up. Bottom line, this guy is going to Afghanistan in 2010. The title line of his Twitter bio ‘Looking forward to 2010 more and more by the day’. Great, just what we need – a jarhead (he was a jarhead, no doubt) that waves the cross in the faces of Muslims. Every general knows that we can’t win the war with this type of mentality. What is needed is the winning of ‘the hearts and minds’ to save face. I don’t think we should have gone into Afghanistan to begin with. I don’t think we should be there now. And I think we will get whooped. It is just scary to think that the Afghan operation is in the hands of people like @Vanburenjrmr.
So here is my conclusion. The guy clearly hates Islam and Muslims and is pretty fucked in the head (if you believe him, you are either arrogant and ignorant, or just plain psycho, like him). My biggest issue with this guy was his evangelizing, his confidence in knowing ‘the truth’, and his claims that Christianity was the superior religion, the only religion worth practicing.
The comment that really triggered me was that Jesus was ‘the Son of God, the Messiah, and the only way into heaven’. To me, such a statement is completely preposterous, ludicrous, and actually unfathomable (I don’t think Jesus literally meant he was ‘The Son of God’, I think he meant that ‘this’ (his attitude and actions) was how God wants us to act, that he was like a Son). To me, such a statement goes against everything that is rational and logical, but then again, who the hell really knows (I’m just going on gut feeling). Here me out.
Jesus was a man of love, compassion, tolerance; he loved the poor, the oppressed, and sought the truth and justice. I appreciate his teachings and hold him in high esteem. I think the world has learned a lot from him (but not enough) and certainly can learn more (I think @Vanburenjrmr does not really get what Jesus is all about). If I practice what Jesus preached, I’m pretty sure that I’m going to get into heaven (again, my own personal agnostic beliefs leads me to question everything – is there even a heaven?). Do I really need to believe that Jesus is ‘the only way to heaven’? Doing so is intolerant behavior, really. It would be like spitting on all the other faiths of the Abrahamic tradition that believe in the same thing as Jesus (like the Prophet Muhammad believed in God).
Do you think Jesus would prevent me into heaven if I said he really wasn’t ‘The Son of God’? I think Jesus would be more concerned with my attitude and actions on earth, my encounters with other human beings, and my purpose in this life. Again, this is all speculation to me. It assumes that this is all real and even important (what if we die and that’s it – wouldn’t that suck?). I just don’t think that if I really did meet Jesus one day, he would hate me because I wasn’t a Christian, because I didn’t believe in the Bible, that I didn’t think he rose from the day, and so on and so forth.
Jesus knows I’m cool. Period.
@Vanburnjrmr is obviously really twisted in his Christian convictions and his general outlook on humanity. He came across as a downright bigot (he even claimed his Christian brothers, the Mormons, were part of a ‘cult’). The guy is so obsessed with the literal interpretation of the Bible that it borders on fanaticism (actually, yeah, he is a fanatic. EASILY). He says ‘Christianity…is 100% true. Christ died on the cross, rose after 3 days, and ascended to heaven…’. Such statements make me cringe. What does that even mean, Christianity 100% true? How the hell can you know? How do you measure it? To say its 100% true means that you have God like powers and that you have all the knowledge and wisdom in the world to make such a massive claim. I never told @Vanburenjrmr this because he simply wasn’t bright enough to understand. Did Christ die on the cross? Probably (91% sure). Did he ascend to heaven? We don’t know really (we assume so); if there is one, Jesus is obviously there. Did he creep out of his grave and rise 3 days later? Hmm. Not so sure about that one. Sounds like this was made up by his disciples because it ‘sounded awesome’ for the Jesus story. That is just my humble opinion though. I really do love Jesus. Great teacher. Hope he lets me into heaven.
In conclusion, @Vanburnejrmr told me that he is ‘absolutely willing to die for Christ’. This one really freaked me out but also supported everything I argued. That quote should remind you of the ‘radical Muslims’ and the 9-11 hijackers. They are willing to die for Islam just like @Vanburenjrmr is willing to die for Christianity based in the sense of religious superiority, that their religion is the only TRUTH.
This brings up a very important question and the thesis of my argument: how is this mindset different than a ‘Muslim terrorist’? Aren’t they driven by ideologies to commit violence. Religious fanaticism?
One of the last things he told me. The only thing he is going to blow up is ‘Satan’s lie’ in Afghanistan. Even if he blows up Satan’s lie, he is a terrorist. That’s what he doesn’t get. Again, I’m not so positive Jesus likes this guy.
He also told me to go get the Bible, read Romans, and he will pray for my soul to find ‘the truth’ (not this topic again!). Sound familiar? Sounds like something bin-Laden and his cronies would say.
‘I still will pray for you, Craig. Shame you won’t hear the truth’ was one of his last ‘tweets’. I just had to laugh at that one. I hope he doesn’t pray for me. Jesus would deny me into heaven on suspicions that I was friends with him.
The point of this whole ordeal is that I wasn’t trying to win the argument, I was just trying to show him his contradictions. I don’t think he learned anything. The more we tweeted, the more he evangelized. Disgusting. Honestly, the guy reminded me of the behavior of ‘Muslim terrorists’ (a term throw around too much). He said that Christianity was the only way, that he was willing to die for Christ, that all other religions had it wrong, etc, etc. What an amazing world we live in. People can be so blind. And dumb.
Best part of this whole thing: @tom1023 just tweeted me ‘what is with this dumbass @vanburenjrmr?’
