[TETENAL]

Young Turkish Woman Murdered � "She lived like a German"

A Turkish woman, who broke away from her family, was shot in the middle of the street in Berlin. Investigators fear a so called murder of honor. At school some muslim pupils applauded the crime. The discussion about dangerous parallel societies is fueled.


Victim S�r�c�: Killed by her brothers because of her life-style?

Berlin � The shooting happened on February 7th at a lonely bus stop in Berlin-Tempelhof. A phone call lured S�r�c� out of the house. In the street the 23 year old woman is hit from close distance by several bullets so severely that she dies at the crime scene. Soon afterwards her 3 brothers are arrested � they allegedly had threatened the girl since some time already.

The family of the young German of Turkish-Kurdish origin considered her a castoff, because Hatin S�r�c� broke away from her family and began her own life � to finally live by her own rules. Grown up in Berlin she married her cousin in Istanbul at age 16. The marriage was arranged by her parents. But Hatin S�r�c� soon felt constricted by the conservative family traditions: Se got a divorce and with her young son she returned to Berlin.

Here she lived in a mother-child-home, graduated from school, and began school as electrician. She was believed to be in love with life and liked to go out. She didn't wear a head scarf. Was that her death sentence?

If the suspicion of the investigators that it was a so called murder of honor turns out to be true � the case of Hatin S�r�c� wouldn't be the first in Germany, but one of the most brutal in recent times. According to a recently published study by Papatya, a Berlin crisis-facility for young female immigrants, a total of 45 men and women have been murdered "in the name of honoer" between 1996 and 2004.

Patriarchal Patterns

"Traditional families don't want that their children become German", says the Turkish author Necla Kelek. In her book "Die fremde Braut" (the alien bride) she talks about the life of Turkish women without rights. "The parents fear that their children become individualists � then they would lose power over them." Myria B�hmecke by the women organization Terre Des Femmes argues similarly. "Honor crimes are no Islamic phenomenon, but a mirror of patriarchal patterns" , says the leader of the campaign "No to crimes in the name of honer" that is running since November and trying to break the taboo on the topic.

For Ali Kizilkaya, the president of the Islamrat (Islamic Counsel), a large muslim head-organization in Germany, the murder of Hatin is "a abuse and insult of the religion". For such "honor murders" there is be no religious justification he says.

The murder of Hatin S�r�c� found applause in a school in Berlin-Neuk�lln. Three pupils of Turkish origin at the Thomas-Morus-Hauptschule, located very closely to the crime scene, said they approved the murder while in class. "She lived like a German" one of them said.

The head of the scoll Volker Steffens was shocked � and reacted immediately. In an open letter to pupils, parents and teachers he threatened the pupils that "such baiting and lack of respect" will have severe consequences. When the letter reached the media the school was besieged by tv teams and photo journalists.


Head of school Volker Steffens: "We are not going to brush anything under the carpet."

"We are not going to brush anything under the carpet", said Steffens in a spontaneously organized press conference. However the respective pupils were not "opinion leaders" at the school. A clarification about the substance of the pupils' statements shall come from a discussion in the next week, where parents also will participate.

It was just a joke?

It remains uncertain whether the statements of the eight-graders were just pubescent provocatoin � or prevalent thinking of Turkish and Arabic grown ups. The pupils can't understand all the trouble. "The head of school took all that way to seriously", says pupil's caption Damla Y. Maybe it was all just a joke: "Those are just little kids; they just wanted to anger the teacher." The 18 year old Turkish girl condemns the murder of Hatin S�r�c�. She refuses the head scarf herself and wears her hair open. "I am free. I can do whatever I want."

Many pupils beliefe the head of school overreacted. In front of the cameras nobody supports the murder of Hatin S�r�c�. "That are customs like in the middle ages", says Ebo A. from Libanon. "Those who want that should go back to Turkey." Anyway, girls would wear head scarfs only because their parents want it, says the 17 year old. "They don't believe in that."

Only a few girls with head scarf can be seen at the school. But who is coming to school in a short skirt in summer, says Eve K., risks to be called "bitch" � by girl who wear head scarfs.

(source)

[bubblewrap]

And I'm suppose to understand the peaceful(opressive) aspects of Islam?
Christianity is not perfect but it's no Islam.
I know exactly where I stand with the Christians and Jews.

[Secret__Police]

Did you hear about the father in Kuwait who cut the throat of his 14 year old daughter infront of her siblings??
He thought she was nolonger pure and had discrased the families honor.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

It's sad how mainstream Islam is about as developed as Christianity was during the Inquisition. Hopefully the middle east will throw away its religion like the west did with Christianity. Its the year 2005 and its about time we get rid of the religions of oriental despots.

[Sherwin]

Nowt new. In the weeks following 9/11 posters went up in the mohammedan communities here praising the work of the perps.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
It's sad how mainstream Islam is about as developed as Christianity was during the Inquisition. Hopefully the middle east will throw away its religion like the west did with Christianity. Its the year 2005 and its about time we get rid of the religions of oriental despots.

I wouldnt go so far as to say that the west has no religion. It used to be christianity, now it's business/economics. The entire society is founded on those principles of capitalism. Nothing wrong with it, but as with every form of social organizations, there are pros and cons.

Just as you have fundamental christians in places like the bible belt, etc, you have fundamentalistic muslims in the middle east. I just think that chrisindom has evolved to be tolerant, and the others seem threathened by such notions and have become defencive to try and preserve their ways of life, and social protocol. it's truely a shame though.brother's murdering their sister cause she didnt wear a piece of cloth on her head....

This isnt to point a finger to islam, but rather to people in general.... where are the priorities ? it's not if your a good/decent person, it's about the clothes you wear or in this case you dont wear. Islam as well as many of the religions of the old world really need to evolve... that includes hinduism, budhism, etc.

Religion has a place in our society. and it's got to be things like councelling people on marriage, family flanning, etc. helping people deal with stress, anger, depression,etc. hepl people with their emotional and psychological problems , teach them how to interact with others, etc. i just wish they move away from the dogma and unnecessory ceremony, such as robes, scalves, chants, shaving heads, etc...and just help make people better as human beings. Tolerance needs to be a universal commandment.

Cheers

[JohnSmithXTREME]

I suppose, historically, a strong trait of Christianity has been dissidence. AFAIK, there has been nothing like the Protestant Reformation in Islam. Protestantism helped Christianity adapt to the secular reality of today's world, and various protestant sects such as Puritanism and Presbyterianism really made progress in challenging authority and encouraging individuals to interpret their religion on their own terms.

But that was hundreds of years ago. Where is the Islamic Reformation? In Iran, where there is a growing democratic movement and a youthful population, why isn't there any religious dissidence amongst the ayatollahs? I have a feeling that as culture contact increases between the east and west, Islam will grow and adapt to reality, but right now the religion is being seized by idealogues who are doing a major disservice to Muslims. It's very unfortunate.

[Athens]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
And I'm suppose to understand the peaceful(opressive) aspects of Islam?
Christianity is not perfect but it's no Islam.
I know exactly where I stand with the Christians and Jews.

Didn't Christians use to burn woman suspect of being Witchs?

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Athens:
Didn't Christians use to burn woman suspect of being Witchs?

Around about 500 years ago, superstitious Christians brutally murdered thousands of innocent "witches". But your comparison of 16th century Europe to modern day Islam further illustrates how something has gone wrong with this religion.

[Athens]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Around about 500 years ago, superstitious Christians brutally murdered thousands of innocent "witches". But your comparison of 16th century Europe to modern day Islam further illustrates how backwards the religion has become.

I don't know about that, you just have to look back 50 years to see black only water fountains and blacks only being allowed to sit in the back of a bus. 50 years ago japanise being rounded up into camps. You just have to look back 50 years for the mass murders of jews. You can look to current africa mass murders too. I wouldn't blame Islam per say, because im sure there are still Christian countries that are almost as backwards just as I am sure there are muslim countries that have progressed further then the one that incedent occured. As well I would like to point out that Muslims living in Canada are beyond that as well. They are still Muslims but do not agree with that. So its not that Islam is backwards as a religion but those countries. After all its Modern law that has changed Christians, not Modern Christians. If it wasent for Modern law gays would prob be burned along with suspect witchs.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Athens:
I don't know about that, you just have to look back 50 years to see black only water fountains and blacks only being allowed to sit in the back of a bus. 50 years ago japanise being rounded up into camps. You just have to look back 50 years for the mass murders of jews. You can look to current africa mass murders too. I wouldn't blame Islam per say, because im sure there are still Christian countries that are almost as backwards just as I am sure there are muslim countries that have progressed further then the one that incedent occured. As well I would like to point out that Muslims living in Canada are beyond that as well. They are still Muslims but do not agree with that. So its not that Islam is backwards as a religion but those countries. After all its Modern law that has changed Christians, not Modern Christians. If it wasent for Modern law gays would prob be burned along with suspect witchs.

Segregation is a good instance of Christianity being warped by southern fundamentalists to fit racist intentions. But keep in mind that main reason that blacks were freed was because of the religious intensity of abolitionist figures like John Brown. With regards regards to Christianity, you could be either on the right side (the puritanical devotion to the sanctity of life and equality of men) or the wrong side (the backwards, paternalistic south who ignored the ethical teachings of Jesus). But had it not been for Christianity, I doubt that abolitionists would have had any fuel for their passion.

With regards to the holocaust, Christianity played hardly any role at all. The holocaust was based on the idea that there was no God, and that people are capable of perfection so long as we eliminate the lower races like blacks and jews. Christian nations like Britain and France put a stop to the holocaust.

Christianity isn't perfect, and frankly I think its useless to western nations now, but it's done much more to promote toleration and equality than any of the other major religions. Islam could be the same if only it experienced some sort of theological reformation, but that is something it will have to do on its own without any help from Europe or the UN.

[Athens]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Segregation is a good instance of Christianity being warped by southern fundamentalists to fit racist intentions. But keep in mind that main reason that blacks were freed was because of the religious intensity of abolitionist figures like John Brown. With regards regards to Christianity, you could be either on the right side (the puritanical devotion to the sanctity of life and equality of men) or the wrong side (the backwards, paternalistic south who ignored the ethical teachings of Jesus). But had it not been for Christianity, I doubt that abolitionists would have had any fuel for their passion.

With regards to the holocaust, Christianity played hardly any role at all. The holocaust was based on the idea that there was no God, and that people are capable of perfection so long as we eliminate the lower races like blacks and jews. Christian nations like Britain and France put a stop to the holocaust.

Christianity isn't perfect, and frankly I think its useless to western nations now, but it's done much more to promote toleration and equality than any of the other major religions. Islam could be the same if only it experienced some sort of theological reformation, but that is something it will have to do on its own without any help from Europe or the UN.

I am hoping that you agree with me with this one. The biggest difference between Countries like the US and most of Europe compared to the Countries that are mostly muslim is the seperation of State and Church. Its not that Islam is flawed, because Christians are flawed to, its that our nations have seperated religion and state and state laws prevent what goes on in muslim countries that don't have the seperation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Around about 500 years ago, superstitious Christians brutally murdered thousands of innocent "witches". But your comparison of 16th century Europe to modern day Islam further illustrates how something has gone wrong with this religion.

The Spanish Inquisition ran up until 1834, much more recent than 500 years ago.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Certainly, I agree that a secular government is always better than a religious government. We are lucky, because Christianity has a tradition of dissidence, with smaller radical sects opposing the policies of established state churches. The plight of the Puritans is a good example of Christianity being used to challenge its own corruption and authority. This dynamic environment of small radical sects of christianity working to disestablish state churches is in large part responsible for the separation of church and state we enjoy today.

Islam today is very similar to pre-reformation christianity. There is no venue for dissent, you either accept the dogma of Islam or you become an athiest. If you're a Catholic and you get sick of the literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can take your pick from any number of smaller sects that have more realistic, liberal interpretations of scripture. But in Islam, you have to accept the dogma, there are no other alternatives. Islam needs to hurry up and move forward, because secularism and democracy are creeping into the middle east.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The Spanish Inquisition ran up until 1834, much more recent than 500 years ago.

I was referring to the witch hunts, the inquisition was a different matter. But I'm glad you brought it up. I make no apologies for Catholicism, which I will readily admit is the most despotic, dogmatic religion in western europe. But even catholicism, with all its corruption and ridiculous superstitions, has managed to adapt. What the Spanish used to do until 170 years ago is no excuse for what Islamic fundementalists do today.

I don't understand why people are so shy about admitting the glaring faults of Islam.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
I don't understand why people are so shy about admitting the glaring faults of Islam.

That's easy - nobody wants to be murdered.

[bubblewrap]

Islam needs to cut the ******** opression NOW. Right now.
Islam is a cesspool that needs a good draining.
The clerics have an OBLIGATION to fix what's gone wrong with Islam just as the Catholic church has an obligation to remove pedophiles from their parishes.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
The holocaust was based on the idea that there was no God, and that people are capable of perfection so long as we eliminate the lower races like blacks and jews. Christian nations like Britain and France put a stop to the holocaust.

That's distorting the truth somewhat when you don't mention the (non-religious) Soviets who gave the largest sacrifice in fighting against the Third Empire. It wasn't particularly a Christian victory.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Islam needs to cut the ******** opression NOW. Right now.
Islam is a cesspool that needs a good draining.
The clerics have an OBLIGATION to fix what's gone wrong with Islam just as the Catholic church has an obligation to remove pedophiles from their parishes.

Clerics are doing that.

For Ali Kizilkaya, the president of the Islamrat (Islamic Counsel), a large muslim head-organization in Germany, the murder of Hatin is "a abuse and insult of the religion". For such "honor murders" there is be no religious justification he says.

It's not so much a matter of Islam, it's a matter of patriarchal thinking. If this women really has been murdered by her brothers as alleged, the head scarf was probably the least of an issue. What was a problem was that she didn't want to live in Turkey, that she didn't wanted to be with her cousin, that she just wanted to do what she wanted to do, not her family.

This patriarchal has nothing to do with Islam probably, but it's more common in countries like Turkey. However in Germany that is totally unaccepted. If you choose to live here you have to give up on this.

Turkey still has a lot of work to do before they are fit to join the EU. Such cultural (not religious) differences are still too large.

[Athens]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Certainly, I agree that a secular government is always better than a religious government. We are lucky, because Christianity has a tradition of dissidence, with smaller radical sects opposing the policies of established state churches. The plight of the Puritans is a good example of Christianity being used to challenge its own corruption and authority. This dynamic environment of small radical sects of christianity working to disestablish state churches is in large part responsible for the separation of church and state we enjoy today.

Islam today is very similar to pre-reformation christianity. There is no venue for dissent, you either accept the dogma of Islam or you become an athiest. If you're a Catholic and you get sick of the literal interpretation of the Bible, then you can take your pick from any number of smaller sects that have more realistic, liberal interpretations of scripture. But in Islam, you have to accept the dogma, there are no other alternatives. Islam needs to hurry up and move forward, because secularism and democracy are creeping into the middle east.

Sorry but thats not true there are many different sects, the 2 largest being Sunni and second to Sunni is Shi�ites. And with in each of those are sub sects.

A Few Others:
Sufi Muslims
Ghulat Sects
Kharijites
Wahhabis

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Athens:
Sorry but thats not true there are many different sects, the 2 largest being Sunni and second to Sunni is Shi�ites. And with in each of those are sub sects.

A Few Others:
Sufi Muslims
Ghulat Sects
Kharijites
Wahhabis

And how many sunnis do you know have converted to being shi'ite? None, because the sects are divided mostly along ethnic lines, not because of theological differences.

I find it really frustrating how you just keep apologising for Islam's atrocities, how it doesn't seem to matter at all to you that Islam is responsible for the torture and suppression of thousands of women today. Have you ever even been to middle east? Have you seen what it's like in a country where women can't drive and aren't allowed to show their faces? You come up with every little excuse to make Islam seem like a normal, well adjusted religion, but face it- it isn't! It's no wonder why my friends from places like Iran or UAE are all atheist; Islam is so old fashioned and abusive that young people refuse to believe in it any longer.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's distorting the truth somewhat when you don't mention the (non-religious) Soviets who gave the largest sacrifice in fighting against the Third Empire. It wasn't particularly a Christian victory.

My point is that the Holocaust was not based on Christian ideology. I suppose you're going to disagree with that as well.

[Athens]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
And how many sunnis do you know have converted to being shi'ite? None, because the sects are divided mostly along ethnic lines, not because of theological differences.

I find it really frustrating how you just keep apologising for Islam's atrocities, how it doesn't seem to matter at all to you that Islam is responsible for the torture and suppression of thousands of women today. Have you ever even been to middle east? Have you seen what it's like in a country where women can't drive and aren't allowed to show their faces? You come up with every little excuse to make Islam seem like a normal, well adjusted religion, but face it- it isn't! It's no wonder why my friends from places like Iran or UAE are all atheist; Islam is so old fashioned and abusive that young people refuse to believe in it any longer.

Im not apologising for any one. I like to keep a open mind to things and not judge so quickly. I have many Muslim friends, Algerian, Turkish, Iranian. They are all muslime. In the case of my Turkish and Iranian friend we went to school together, both arnt just going to college currently but have put away or are helping there sisters go to school. Neither of them have families where the woman have to keep there faces covered. Both of there moms have drivers licences. The Algerian is the only one of the 3 who prays 5 times a day and is more traditional but his wife drives, his 2 girls and his wife do keep there hair covered and he inisits on a good education for his girls. I don't believe you can make all of islam evil. For example those who really follow the Keran (to lazy to look up its spelling) all say the same thing, killing innocent people is against islam. 911 is a perfect example of this. Not ONE of my muslim friends supported that. I've done a decent amount of reserch and the religion is just as cut up into different sects and ideas as christians. The bad elements are what make the news, not the good.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
I suppose, historically, a strong trait of Christianity has been dissidence. AFAIK, there has been nothing like the Protestant Reformation in Islam. Protestantism helped Christianity adapt to the secular reality of today's world, and various protestant sects such as Puritanism and Presbyterianism really made progress in challenging authority and encouraging individuals to interpret their religion on their own terms.

But that was hundreds of years ago. Where is the Islamic Reformation? In Iran, where there is a growing democratic movement and a youthful population, why isn't there any religious dissidence amongst the ayatollahs? I have a feeling that as culture contact increases between the east and west, Islam will grow and adapt to reality, but right now the religion is being seized by idealogues who are doing a major disservice to Muslims. It's very unfortunate.

1. Christian reformation made prominent by Martin Luther was a reaction to the religious government of the catholic church, espescially a reaction to the system of paying a regular "tax" to the church in exchange for getting sins forgiven.
In (Sunni-)Islam there was never an islamic church that had alone the religious authority, the Quran was written in arabic and everyone who spoke arabic could read (if he/she wasn't literate, he/she could listen to imams that read the Quran aloud) the Quran and interpret it for him/herself.

2. Because of what is described in 1., there was dissidence from the very start of Islam, and for many centuries, which led to the overall split-up between shias and sunnis but also to different branches inside sunni-Islam. It wasn't until the ottoman-occupation and usurpation of the islamic world, that dissidence inside sunni-Islam was slowly but surely suffocated, though not completely and a state-ordered doctrine was propagated that was very orthodox.

3. Iran's ayathollas are already a fruit of dissidence as they are shias. Shia's represent about 10% of muslims in the world, and in that system there is a sort of islamic church in the form of the organization of the clerics and ayathollas. Those decide what doctrine the shias have to follow, and those also decide which of the secular laws, the secular lawmakers are proposing are contradictory to the shia-doctrine and use a veto against them.

4. In all other arabic countries, with the exception of Taliban-Afghanistan and partly of Saudi-Arabia, the governments are secular and there is a clear separation between religion and state. In most arabic countries movements and political figures that try to bring in religion into state-affairs are brutally oppressed and prosecuted, emprisoned, squashed and tortured. Up until a few years back it was for example forbidden for women to wear head-scarves in any public building in Turkey. Turkey really went over the top since ww2 to not only drive out religion from state-affairs but also to oppress it in private parts of the society, for example it abolished the arabic language and taught only the turkish language, thus making it more difficult for people to read and understand the Quran, and at the same time it closed down all mosques that wanted to teach the arabic language in private.

5. You are obviously an atheist, but your disbelief in God doesn't make him vanish, He is there and will judge you. That said, everything that you enjoy nowadays, the system of law and order, the constitutional state, the human rights and freedoms, even technology and philosophies, science and wisedom, all have religious origins, most of what modernity consists of was inspired by islamic inventions, knowledge, philosophies and science... There was already enough contact between east and west to kickstart the west, not to mention the era of coloniazation. Today the contact is through media, tourism, immigrants and (secret and open) wars.

Back to the topic of the murder of a young turkish woman:

That has nothing to do with Islam, it's obviously due to backward tribal morale-code, that existed way before Islam came onto the world-scene. In the context of tribal thinking, it makes sense to kill a tribal member who leaves and betrays the tribe, by wanting to live under rules and protection of another "tribe" (aka western nation and laws), but it has nothing to do with Islam.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Back to the topic of the murder of a young turkish woman:

That has nothing to do with Islam, it's obviously due to backward tribal morale-code, that existed way before Islam came onto the world-scene. In the context of tribal thinking, it makes sense to kill a tribal member who leaves and betrays the tribe, by wanting to live under rules and protection of another "tribe" (aka western nation and laws), but it has nothing to do with Islam.

Taliesin

Is that so? So I suppose these elements of the Qur'an are the making of men and not of the prophet Muhammad? These are all tribal customs?


1. The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223);


2. It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282);


3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3);


4. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11);


5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Is that so? So I suppose these elements of the Qur'an are the making of men and not of the prophet Muhammad? These are all tribal customs?


1. The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223);


2. It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282);


3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3);


4. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11);


5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

vmarks, not withstanding the links in your sig, everyone knows about your anti-Islamic attitudes. So, what really is the point of these examples? That the Koran contains suras that direct men to treat women badly? How does this relate to the honor-killing that took place in Berlin and the possible motivation for that killing?

Why don't you tell us what YOU think about this episode.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
1. The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223);

A field or 'tilth' in this context is something that one tends to and looks after - though by your customary, anti-Islamic, contorted logic I fully expect to see you next claim that Islam commands Muslim men to fly over their women in crop-dusters and gas them with pesticide spray.

2. It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282);

http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat...slamic_law.htm

3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3);

During the times of paganism, orphaned girls in the care of powerful patriarchs who ruled their families with an iron fist used to receive a raw deal from their guardians, especially if they had some wealth of their own. As soon as the girls came of age, they married them, not out of love but out of sheer greed so that they could own their wealth as well, and then subjected them to all sorts of indignities, hoping they would soon die and leave their wealth behind for their tormentors to lawfully inherit.

Then there were those who dared not purloin the wealth belonging to the orphaned girls in their care from fear of its social ramifications, but exploited them in many other ways, such as sexual gratification and physical abuse, forcing them into a life of sin and depravity, then selling them off to the merchants who were in the market for 'flesh trade'.

There were also those who married them without regard to numbers, nor to their ability to treat them with fairness and equality, their interests cantered only around the weath they owned and would become legally theirs as a result of marriage.

The revelation of the above verse put an end to all these nefarious practices. The guardians of orphaned girls were required to marry the girls who appealed to them instead of forcing them into fornication, up to a maximum of four, subject to the stringent condition that they had the ability to treat them with fairness and equality, and then manage their finances for them without the fear of attracting opprobrium from the community.

Fairness in dealings and equality in treatment were no longer a matter of choice but became a condition of wedlock by making it incumbent on men who were not sure of extending this basic courtesy to their wives not to marry more than one, or more than what they could cope with.

Equality in treatment applies to matters of food, articles of clothing, quality of shelter and the extent of conjugal relations.

It should be noted that, though Islam makes provision for polygamous marriages, it is not an option too often taken up by most Muslims, in view of the above mentioned stipulation, except where there are extenuating circumstances.

Examples of these circumstances are : if the husband is a hereditary title-holder such as a prince, an Emir or a Quazi, which could lapse in the absence of issues, and the woman is incapable of bearing him offspring due to her infertility, a second marriage, preferably with her consent, is deemed better than divorcing her and throwing her out in the cold.

Another example is, if the woman is suffering from an infectious decease such as leprosy on account of which normal conjugal relationship between the spouses is impossible to prevail, it is better for the husband to take another wife, preferably with her consent, rather than divorce her and throw her out in the cold.

Another example is, in times of war, when there is a shortage of men and an abundance of women, which quite often happens, it is better for the surplus women to live as wives along with other wives, rather than remain unwed and fall a prey to solecism.

In this context it should be borne in mind that, if a Muslim is residing in a secular state where polygamous marriages are forbidden by law, the laws of the realm take precedence over the Islamic Law, for obvious reasons.

In India, the priest empowered to perform Muslim marriages is also a Civil Servant like all the other Civil Registrars of Marriages are, and is required to register marriages performed by him in a State owned Register, so that they are governed by prevalent legislation.

4. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11);

This is because, in a strictly patriarchal family as envisaged by Islam, men shoulder most of the financial burdens of their dependants, who often include parents of both spouses, their siblings in need, their own children, orphans within the inner family, consanguines from the wider family, their education, their marriages, their medical bills etc.

5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

Men, regardless of which religion they subscribe to and which society they live in, Islam or Christianity, Hinduism or Heathenism, in the East or in the West, now or in the past, have always occupied a place of eminence and superiority over women, by virtue of their physical strength at least, not to mention the traditional role they play as the breadwinners in the family.

At the same time, if a family is to succeed as a unit in the midst of all the pressures it faces in every aspect of life, it is important that authority should emanate from one central source at the top, so that the rules of co-existence are laid down and followed; those in need of guidance are guided; those in need of help are helped; those who require to be restrained are restrained; those who must be protected are protected. The ground rules remain the same whether we are referring to a society, a community, a state, a sovereignty, or a commonwealth, - any organization under which civilized human beings unite in order to pursue a common goal.

Islam, which promotes strict leadership and tacit obedience, empowers the husband to play that role of leadership and ordains the wife to extend to him her tacit obedience, so long as there is no evidence of abuse. This, in effect, renders his power benevolent and her loyalty conditional.

If, in the performance of these roles, the use of reasonable force becomes necessary, he is entitled to resort to it; and if in subjecting herself to his authority, the option of disregarding him becomes an inevitability for the well being of the family, she is entitled to resort to disobedience. Where there are privileges in place, there are stipulations to balance them out; where there are rights, there are duties; where there is power, there are stringent rules for exercising it.

If women seem poised towards belligerence and insubordination, the man should reason with her first, impressing upon her the consequential damage which her inflexibility could do to the family as a whole, and to her own prospects of absolution on the Day of Judgement by flouting the Divine admonition.

Punishment resulting from a lack of response to it should be mild remonstration, or use of reasonable force in the form of a thrashing, or at its worst, sleeping apart for for short periods until commonsense prevails.

When that happens, and she admits to her fault and offers her apologies, forgive her in the same lofty manner in which Allah forgives you your failings and your shortcomings, rather than persist with the nagging.

However, if common sense does not prevail and the conflict between them escalates, then the course of action as set out below should be resorted to and the matter left in the hands of Allah in the hope that He would achieve what the humans could not by bringing about a change of heart and reconciliation between them, for He knows and He cares

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Islam, which promotes strict leadership and tacit obedience, empowers the husband to play that role of leadership and ordains the wife to extend to him her tacit obedience, so long as there is no evidence of abuse.

That is an opinion. What is a fact is that many women are treated badly in some Islamic countries, and this happens with consent of the clergy.

�in a strictly patriarchal family as envisaged by Islam�

Patriarchal thinking is what led to this women be married against her will at the age of 16. It's not a vision that is shared in Germany.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Is that so? So I suppose these elements of the Qur'an are the making of men and not of the prophet Muhammad? These are all tribal customs?

That's actually a very interesting topic, and I'm grateful that you offer me the opportunity to analyse and reponder and present what I know about that topic. But before I do that, you should know that the Quran was/is neither the making of men nor prophet Muhammad but the making of God Himself.

Originally posted by vmarks:

1. The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223);


2. It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282);


3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3);


4. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11);


5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

Indeed in the Quran, women in cases of financial inheritances or in cases of courts are not granted the same weight as men, in those cases about half the weight of men.

Nonetheless at the time of the revelations that was a revolution for women's rights! Before that, in the polytheistic Arabia, and parts of it was similar in whole Europe even in christianized countries, women had no rights at all, no role in courts, no right to inheritages, and men could marry as many women as they could afford and could practice sexual relations to as many women he wanted without marriage.

There's actually more to it: The Quran made clear that women are as well as men creatures of God, and that both have a soul and a free will and that both can come to paradise if they believe in God and the Last Day and commit good deeds. The Quran also gave women the right to decide themselves who they want to marry, and the man who wanted to marry her had to pay "money" directly to her, which she could keep as her possession, yes women were granted the right to possess things. Slavery was a common practice at those times, and the Quran was actually directed at abolishing slavery, by calling muslims to free any slave that wanted to be free and that declared his belief in God and the Quran prohibited that slaves get forced into prostitution... and numerous other means to free slaves. You even quoted a verse that illustrates that strategy, the muslim men were called for to marry female captives, off course only if she wanted to, in order to free them.

Indeed all these things and even the verses you quoted are clearly not of tribal nature, as they are clearly preparing people for individual rights...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That is an opinion. What is a fact is that many women are treated badly in some Islamic countries, and this happens with consent of the clergy.

I've heard of some bad treatments, like forced marriages or the forced cutting off of some part of the clitoris...
but these are unislamic and actually barbaric behavings.

Originally posted by TETENAL:

Patriarchal thinking is what led to this women be married against her will at the age of 16. It's not a vision that is shared in Germany.

And again to marry a woman against her will to someone she doesn't want to marry is unislamic and stems from pre-Islam tribal behaviour, same goes for the murdering of tribal members that leave their tribe.

Taliesin

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
A field or 'tilth' in this context is something that one tends to and looks after - though by your customary, anti-Islamic, contorted logic I fully expect to see you next claim that Islam commands Muslim men to fly over their women in crop-dusters and gas them with pesticide spray.

http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat...slamic_law.htm

*SMACKDOWN*

[bubblewrap]

So do we try to influence old tribal customs in the Isalmic world to change or embrace these opressive rituals as accepted culture?

[BoomStick]

What I want to know is why did the perfect socialist utopian welfare state of Germany allow someone to be murdered with a handgun.

Where was the state to protect her?

I thought murder was a thing of the past in progressive europe.

[bubblewrap]

Southern Germany has Turks like the Southern US has Latinos.
I never really understood it in Germany.
That an lots of Greeks.
But when I was there, everyone HATED the Turks.
I really didn't get it.
But the Turkish restraunts were great. Especially the belly dancers!

[Athens]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
What I want to know is why did the perfect socialist utopian welfare state of Germany allow someone to be murdered with a handgun.

Where was the state to protect her?

I thought murder was a thing of the past in progressive europe.

LOL man get out of your bedroom and see the world. You think Canada is a Utopia with out crime, you think Europe is a Utopia with out crime. Its ether you have a REAL low opinion of the US and a real high opinion of the rest of the world or you have never left your bedroom and your speaking out of your ass.

[BoomStick]

Athens, you are clueless to satire.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
What I want to know is why did the perfect socialist utopian welfare state of Germany allow someone to be murdered with a handgun.

Homicide rate in the USA was 5.6 per 100.000 in 2002 and 1.1 per 100.000 in Germany. It is safer in Germany than it is in the USA. Or do you believe she would still be alive if she had a handgun?

Where was the state to protect her?

You could have noticed that she lifed in a mother-child-home. So the state did help her and her child when she was suppressed by her family.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Homicide rate in the USA was 5.6 per 100.000 in 2002 and 1.1 per 100.000 in Germany. It is safer in Germany than it is in the USA. Or do you believe she would still be alive if she had a handgun?
You could have noticed that she lifed in a mother-child-home. So the state did help her and her child when she was suppressed by her family.

You up until the point she was gunned down in the street?


Yes, a gun could have helped her a great deal.

[bubblewrap]

When I was in Germany, there was a policeman on almost every street.
I don't see how this ever happened.

What Boomstick is getting at is if the state was taking care of her(and it's people), how did it fail in it's duty. Gross incompetance? Gross neglegance? Both?

I believe she would still be alive if she had been Buddist.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, a gun could have helped her a great deal.

Under the assumption that she had seen her brothers (who have lured her into the street) before they have seen her, she realized that they wanted to kill her before they (who were intending to kill her from the start) before they realized she is pulling the gun in self-defence, then she would just have to shoot 3 times faster than her brothers and would have to be willing to kill her brother. Yes, then a gun would have helped her a great deal. In your phantasy world that is. In real life a gun doesn't help at best, and increases the risk to be injured or killed in the usual case.

[bubblewrap]

Her being armed propably would have not helped at all.
It takes training to arm oneself effectively.
Culture killed her. The socialist government failed to protect her from the backwards culture she left. And I'm suppose to embrace and understand this tribal ****?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Under the assumption that she had seen her brothers (who have lured her into the street) before they have seen her, she realized that they wanted to kill her before they (who were intending to kill her from the start) before they realized she is pulling the gun in self-defence, then she would just have to shoot 3 times faster than her brothers and would have to be willing to kill her brother. Yes, then a gun would have helped her a great deal. In your phantasy world that is. In real life a gun doesn't help at best, and increases the risk to be injured or killed in the usual case.

They come to the door, she draws the pistol, tells them to leave or she'll shoot, they leave. Then, she calls police to report the incident. I've done it myself, it works.

considering her strained relations with her brothers, I doubt she was lured... dragged is more likely.

[thunderous_funker]

Yeah, why can't muslims be less primitive and more advanced like christians?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
And I'm supposed to embrace and understand this tribal ****?

No, you aren't, there is really nothing to be said for embracing tribal behaviours like this, it is forbidden in Islam as well as under western law.

Tribal behaviours make only sense in times and areas, where there is no state and no law.

Taliesin

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
Did you hear about the father in Kuwait who cut the throat of his 14 year old daughter infront of her siblings??
He thought she was nolonger pure and had discrased the families honor.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ghlight=bleach

Very similar.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The Spanish Inquisition ran up until 1834, much more recent than 500 years ago.

Actually, the Spanish Inquisition officially ended in 1808. It was the Secular Authority that was responsible for maintaining and perpetuating the Inquisition. No doubt, the Catholic Church was certainly at the foundation of it, but made themselves a "good cop" in the plight. The Church tried to position itself as the "pardoner" on such affairs and could, in that relationship say things like; "no, wait stop. Don't be too harsh." even if they were being dishonest.

Truth be told, as usual it had absolutely nothing to do with religion itself or even Catholicism though I'm a critic generally. Religion was used to exact torture on the wealthy minority and to ethnically cleanse the region. Period. Then, they could take on the deceased's property and disseminate it among the leadership. In short, religion was used to carry out the desires of greed, jealousy, and racism. They had to ignore the tenets of that religion to do these things.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yeah, why can't muslims be less primitive and more advanced like christians?

I noticed you didn't post the link directly to the site's homepage. On that homepage you can view other acts of barbarism committed by the secular. That said; Christians are to be living examples of law. A pro-lifer is not one who will take the life of another. A Christian will not commit murder in this way. The fact that the site holds him up as a hero is fearsome, gruesome, and a sorrowful example of Christianity IMHO.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

1. ...

3. Iran's ayathollas are already a fruit of dissidence as they are shias. Shia's represent about 10% of muslims in the world, and in that system there is a sort of islamic church in the form of the organization of the clerics and ayathollas. Those decide what doctrine the shias have to follow, and those also decide which of the secular laws, the secular lawmakers are proposing are contradictory to the shia-doctrine and use a veto against them.


5. You are obviously an atheist, but your disbelief in God doesn't make him vanish, He is there and will judge you.

Point 1- I'm aware that Islamic culture was once a great example of tolerance and innovation

3- When I say dissidence, I'm not talking about differences between different sects, I'm talking about dissidence against the prevailing fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. There is obviously no hint of liberalism in Iran's clerically controlled government. Personal experience in the country has revealed to me the extent to which ridiculous measures are taken to control every bit of peoples' lives. People get arrested for drinking in their homes, men get reprimanded by the police for looking at women in parks, etc. The government is entirely based on religious bullsh1t.

5- I hate to break it to you, but if there were a God, I doubt he would judge people based on their devotion to ancient superstitions.

I'd respond to all your points but I'm too strung out on caffeine and lack of sleep!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I noticed you didn't post the link directly to the site's homepage. On that homepage you can view other acts of barbarism committed by the secular. That said; Christians are to be living examples of law. A pro-lifer is not one who will take the life of another. A Christian will not commit murder in this way. The fact that the site holds him up as a hero is fearsome, gruesome, and a sorrowful example of Christianity IMHO.

Hence the utter irrationality of this thread.

1. so and so are members of [group]
2. so and so did horrific act
3. [group] is fundamentally given to horrific acts

Morality is not predicated on association with any group. Being or not being a member of some social group--even social groups that generally profess to be committed to morality--does not entail individual morality.

Why people persist on repeating this meaningless exercise is beyond me.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Why people persist on repeating this meaningless exercise is beyond me.

So we shouldn't try to learn from cases like this? No effort should be taken to better integrate people of Turkish origin? When women are force married, burned or shot to death it's just meaningless?