SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (212882)7/21/2007 3:04:20 PM
From: average joe  Respond to of 794176
 
It should be noted before reading the below article that Islam is a religion of charity and that Muslims always condemn the atrocity while exonerating the perpetrator.

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor" –
A Family Affair: (Part Two of Three)

By Adrian Morgan

In Part One of this series, I described a few British honor killing cases. In fact, the phenomenon of killing for "honor" has become a problem wherever large concentrations of migrant Muslims have settled in ghettoes within Western cultures. Families choose to live in the West, but insist on following narrow cultural traditions. Their children are trapped between two cultures.

In Germany, there is a community of 3 million Muslims, most of whom are migrant workers from Turkey. In Berlin, there are 200,000 Turks living in run down suburbs. Hatun Surucu was a young woman of Turkish Kurdish origins. On February 7, 2005, when she was aged 23, Hatun was waiting at a bus stop in the Tempelhof district of Berlin. Her 18-year old brother Ayhan approached her and shot her three times in the head. Hatun's death was certainly not the first case of honor killing in Germany, but the media were shocked by the reactions of her family and members of the local community.

At a nearby school, filled with children of immigrant families, 14-year old Turkish boys applauded Hatun's killing. One boy said: "She only had herself to blame". Another argued: "She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German". The media would have sidelined Hatun's case, were it not for the school's director, who sent letters to parents, and copied these to other teachers across Germany. TV and newspapers expressed the public shock. For the first time, the issue of honor killing was being discussed throughout the nation.

Hatun's murder was the sixth honor killing to have happened in Berlin within four months. Two of the women victims had been stabbed in front of their small children, one was shot, another strangled, and the other had been drowned. A Turkish women's group called Papatya noted at the time of Hatun's death that 40 honor killings had taken place in Germany since 1996.

Three of Hatun's five brothers were charged with her murder. Ayhan, the eighteen-year old who fired the shots, had bragged of his deed to his girlfriend. Two older brothers, Mutlu aged 25 and 24-year old Alpaslan, were suspected of providing the gun that killed Hatun. With media interest leading up to the trial, the details of Hatun's life emerged. In 1998 when she was only 15, she had been sent to Turkey by the family to marry a cousin. She left him and returned to Berlin in May 1999, pregnant. She gave birth to a son called Can and left the family apartment. She refused to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf, and raised Can on her own. Hatun took up a course to train to be an electrician. She was nearing completion of her training when she was murdered.

On April 13, 2006, Ayhan Surucu was sentenced to nine years and three months' imprisonment for Hatun's murder. When Judge Michael Degrief read out the sentence, the young man laughed. The court could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the two other accused brothers were guilty, and they were freed. The other members of the family cheered. Within days, they announced they were to hold a party. Five members of the family were photographed walking through a park in Kreuzberg with smiles on their faces. Hatun's sister, who was close to the family, announced her intentions to legally adopt Hatun's child.

In Denmark, there have been nine known honor killings. One of these captured media interest because it had taken place in broad daylight, and had been captured on camera. Eighteen-year old Ghazala Khan came from an immigrant Pakistani family. On September 23, 2005, she was with her 27-year old Afghan husband Emal Khan outside the Slaglese train station in Westen Zealand. Because she had married someone not of the family choosing, Ghazala was thought to have offended her family's "honor". The marriage had taken place only two days before. They were intending to flee by train.

Ghazala's 29-year old brother Akthar Abbas was in hiding near the station, armed with a loaded gun. He shot his sister twice through the heart, killing her. He also shot her husband twice in the stomach. Emal Khan survived, and would later give evidence at the trial, which commenced on May 15, 2006. What was unusual about this murder trial is that although one person had carried out the shooting, five other members of the family and three family friends within the Pakistani community were also placed on trial.

During the trial, Akthar Abbas claimed that he had murdered only in "self defense" because Emal Khan had kicked him. On June 27, the nine members of the family entourage were found guilty, and the following day their sentences were set.

Ghulam Abbas, Ghazala's father, was found guilty of incitement to murder and plotting the murder. Akthar Abbas was found guilty of murder. The pair were given life sentences, commuted to 16 years' jail. Two uncles received 16 years' jail. An aunt, who had helped to lure Ghazala to the station, and a cousin were both jailed for 14 years. As these were still not full Danish citizens and still had Pakistani nationality, the court ordered that the aunt and cousin should be expelled after serving their jail terms. Three other individuals, whose involvement had mainly been confined to telephone liaisons, were given sentences from eight to ten years.

In other European countries where Muslim immigration has taken place at an alarming rate, honor killings also occur. The Netherlands has a population of 16 million, with a million of these being Muslim. In the Netherlands at least 20 such killings have happened, mainly amongst Turkish Muslims. In 2000 the Netherlands introduced a draft proposal on honor killings to the UN General Assembly to spur action against such crimes. In 2005 the Dutch Cabinet decided to crack down on such killings.

In Sweden on January 21, 2002 Fadime Sahindal, a 26 year old woman of Turkish Kurdish origins, was shot in the head by her father, Rahmi Sahindal. Fadime had been preparing to make a visit to Kenya. She was killed in front of her mother and sisters after she had had said goodbye to them.

For four years Rahmi and other men in the family had threatened to kill Fadime. She had "dishonored" the family by starting a relationship with Patrik, a Swedish boy, in 1996. Her father had beaten up the couple, and disowned her. Patrik's parents had tried to get Fadime's father to allow them to marry, but he refused. When they moved to another town, Fadime’s brother Masud beat her up. Her father spat in her face, saying: "Bloody whore. I will beat you to pieces." In May 1998, her father and 17-year old brother were found guilty of threatening behavior after she had taken them to court for their threats of "rape, murder and partition".

In June 1998, Patrik died in a mysterious car crash, and after that Fadime became a public spokeswoman on honor crime. Her father continued to threaten her. When he was in court in 2002, charged with Fadime's killing, he confessed to the murder. He said his daughter was a "whore" and claimed he had to kill her for family "honor". After Fadime's death, several thousand Swedes held torchlight vigils, and the integration minister praised her as a "fantastic woman and a model for young women."

In November 2005 in Högsby, southern Sweden, a family of Afghan immigrants was suspected of murdering another Afghan, 20-year old Abbas Rezai. This young man was said to have been secretly engaged to the family's 16-year old daughter. Rezai had been beaten with an iron bar and a baseball bat, doused in hot oil, and stabbed 23 times. On April 26, 2006 the girl's brother was found guilty and sentenced to only four years' jail. He had been 17 at the time of the killing. The prosecution had wanted the killer's parents to get life sentences, but it appears only the brother was found guilty.

In Italy in August 2006, Hina Saleem, a Pakistani woman had her throat slit and she was buried in the garden of her family's home in Sarezzo. There are 40,000 Pakistanis living in Italy. Hina's father, who had applied for citizenship only two months previously, was arrested, along with his brother. Hina's crime had been to have a relationship with a 33-year old Italian carpenter. Hina had registered police complaints about her father's violence before she was killed, but withdrew the charges. She would wear Western clothes away from the home, but around her father she would wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. Hina's mother had protected Hina from some of her father's attacks, but she had herself fled back to Pakistan before the murder took place.

Home Sweet Home

In the countries from which perpetrators of such "honor killings" originally came, the custom of "honor" killing is rife. Turkey, particularly in the southeastern Kurdish regions, has a culture where honor killings were common. Under Turkey's penal code, a legitimate defense for such a killer was to claim "honor killing" and receive a reduced sentence. When Turkey moved to make itself ready to join the European Union, such a defense was removed in 2004. During that year, there were 47 recorded honor killings in Turkey. In October 2005, a poll carried out in the south-eastern (Kurdish) city of Diyarbakir found that nearly 40% of people questioned thought that a woman who committed adultery should be killed. Twenty-one percent thought that an adulterous woman should have her nose or ears cut off.

As a result of longer jail terms for perpetrators of Turkish "honor" killers, a disturbing phenomenon began. At the start of 2006, an increasing amount of girls and young women in the east of Turkey started to commit suicide. In many cases, they were pressured to do this by relatives who wished to maintain family "honor". Yakin Erturk, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, traveled to the region in May to June, and claimed: "The majority of women in the provinces visited live lives that are not their own but are instead determined by a patriarchal normative order that draws its strength from reference to tradition, culture and tribal affiliation and often articulates itself on the basis of distorted notions of honour... Diverse forms of violence are deliberately used against women who are seen to transgress this order. Suicides of women in the region occur within such a context."

In Afghanistan, honor killings have been increasing in numbers, to the high level they were during the time of the Taliban. A report from September 2006 claimed that from January to September there had been 185 honor killings. In 2005 there had been only 47 confirmed cases.

Soraya Sobrang, head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) said: "Unfortunately, many women and girls continue to lose their lives due to this brutal crime. Sadly, it's totally ingrained in [Afghan] culture, particularly in rural areas of the country." On Radio Free Europe, Sobrang said: "I can tell you that they happen all over Afghanistan. Most of them get buried within the family, and no one is ever informed about them. But today, some cases are made public and are disseminated - so we are able to get some figures. They take places in faraway villages in rural areas."

In Pakistan, the situation is dire. In 2006, the Pakistan Human Rights Commission (HCRP) claimed that about 1,000 women are killed every year in "honor" killings. In January 2005, honor killing was officially made illegal. However, a clause in the law called "compoundability" allowed a killer to walk free if relatives accepted "blood money", in alignment with Islamic law. As most "honor" killers are themselves the relatives, it easy for those who schemed to have someone killed for "honor" to be compensated, and for killers to escape punishment. I. A. Rehman, director of the HRCP, said: "The element of compoundability makes the law a joke."

In April 2006 in Dir, which lies near the border of Afghanistan, a jirga or "council of elders" convened in one village, with 4,000 people attending. This council declared honor killing to be permissible, and ordered that anyone who reported such an act to the police should be killed.

Along with the tragic stories of honor killings, many of which are never reported, are also found tales of "honor mutilations". In November 2005 in Punjab province in the east of Pakistan, Shamin Mai was attacked by six individuals, including her uncle Bilal and her brother Bashir. Shamin Mai had committed no crime other than to engage in a marriage contract, on her own initiative. As a result, she had both her legs hacked off.

In May 2006, a young woman was mutilated by her husband and his brother in Dera Ghazi Khan district, Punjab province. Eisa Khan Khosa married his 18-year old wife Ayesha only a month and a half before. Khan suspected his new bride was having an affair with her cousin. They argued, and Ayesha went to live at her brother's home. On May 20, with his brother, Khan visited the house and persuaded Ayesha to come back. She agreed.

On the way back to the family home, Khan and his brother cut off Ayesha's nose and her lips, and abandoned her. Ayesha was taken to the Dera Ghazi Khan district hospital, and her husband and brother-in-law were arrested. In addition to mutilating her face, her husband had also tried to cut off her arms. The two men were in custody, but Ayesha said: "They are powerful people with money, and will get out on bail."

Another form of "honor mutilation" which has become increasingly common in recent years is "acid attack". Pakistan's Human Rights Commission states that every year in Pakistan, 400 women are subjected to acid attacks. In Bangladesh in 2005, there were 268 incidents of acid attacks, mainly upon women, according to the Acid Survivors Foundation. The scale of such attacks may be higher. The victims of such attacks are permanently disfigured. Their chances of finding a partner are taken away, and often they are blinded.

Zahida Perveen was one Pakistani victim of a razor attack. The assault blinded her, and also her ears and nose were sliced off. She had been tied up by her husband as he attacked her. He suspected that Zahida had been involved in a relationship with his brother. She said: "He came home from the mosque and accused me of having a bad character. I told him it was not true, but he didn't believe me. He caught me and tied me up, and then he started cutting my face. He never said a word except ‘This is your last night’.”

There are many Muslims who claim that honor violence and honor killings have nothing to do with Islam, and it is only a "cultural" tradition. As Islam aims to be a guide for all aspects of life, the predominance of honor killings in Muslim countries and societies gives the lie to such claims.

In Part Three, I will show that in the Middle East, the heartland of Islam, the custom of honor killings is also endemic in local "culture".

familysecuritymatters.org



To: DMaA who wrote (212882)7/21/2007 3:14:42 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794176
 
The correct term for a Muslim is shaheed. For a Christian it's martyr.

"Shaheed" is not an English word. If you look it up, though, you will find it means "martyr."

Your argument is like complaining about my claiming to have eaten salmon and tuna for lunch today rather than sake and maguro just because I ate them in in a Japanese restaurant. We Americans use English words for things. In English, the word is "martyr."

If you are interested in clear unambiguous speech those are the words you will use.

There is nothing ambiguous about "martyr."

I grew up with the Catholic notion of martyr. It was usually someone who accepted death rather than deny his faith. Better to die and go to heaven. It's quite different kind of martyr from your shaheed but they're both martyrs. The word applies to both. You've co-opted for Christians because you are offended by the Islamist version and you don't want that negative connotation of the "bad" martyrs to rub off on your "good" martyrs.

When people are offended by word usage, I feel bad for the offended and want to help sort things out. My approach is always to evaluate whether that offense is justified or not. If it's not, I try to offer what I think is a more objective perspective in case the offended is willing to give up the offense. Usually doesn't work--I don't have the training of a cognitive therapist--but I give it a shot.

If you take words like "crusader" and "jihadist," the latter is not an English word, either, but we use it because "crusader" derives from the word, "cross." To use a Christian-based word for a jihadist is way too ironic. But "martyr" does not derive from anything Christian so it can be applied generically.

Today's Post has an article that mentions evangelizing vs. proselytizing and negative connotations re the latter that were news to me. If you're interested:
-----------------
Spreading the Word
Georgetown University tries to define what is acceptable evangelism on campus, while its Protestant students explore the most effective ways for respectfully sharing their faith

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 21, 2007; B01

A new anti-proselytizing policy at Georgetown University has spurred debate about where the line is between vigorous faith-sharing and intolerance.

In adopting the policy, the Jesuit school joined a growing number of colleges and universities trying to spell out what constitutes acceptable evangelism in an America that is increasingly religiously diverse and less comfortable with absolutes.

Major denominational groups have made similar efforts over the years, and employment lawyers say cases about evangelizing in the workplace are becoming more common as well.

The trend in the new rules is to equate proselytizing, a neutral word in the dictionary for the act of trying to convert or convince someone, with badly intentioned or harmful evangelizing. But the lines aren't always so neat for evangelical Americans, who say evangelism -- at Georgetown and elsewhere -- seems to have entered a new zone.

John Borelli, special assistant for interreligious initiatives in the Georgetown president's office, was the main driver behind the new policy's language, which was announced in May. The difference is clear, he said, between evangelizing and banned actions, which include "moral constraint," and depriving people "of their inherent value as persons."

"It's not about the conversation being uncomfortable, it's about tearing down another person's church in order to show how superior yours is," he said.

Stephanie Brown, 22, who graduated from Georgetown in the spring, embraces the gist of the new edict: Respect other people's religious beliefs. The Kansas City, Mo., native takes seriously the Bible's edict to personally represent Jesus, so she doesn't want to offend anyone.

But as soon as she starts talking about the policy, which forbids "any effort to influence people in ways that depersonalize," the words seem to defy obvious translation. How do you express that Jesus is the only way to salvation without sounding judgmental? How do you deal with the question of what happens to a nonbeliever in eternity?

"I'd probably be like, 'Wow, I don't want to answer that,' " Brown said. "How do you communicate what you believe to be true without offending people?"

The Georgetown policy replaces a much more general statement about ecumenism. The policy is the product of months of dialogue with six private evangelical Protestant campus ministry groups the school expelled last August amid finger-pointing about poor communication and evangelizing. It is part of a broader "covenant" that restored the groups' status as recognized Georgetown organizations in May.

The groups, including InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, which Brown belonged to, applauded the deal; InterVarsity issued a statement on its Web site saying the policy "does not restrict InterVarsity's witness."

Terrence Reynolds, a Georgetown theology professor who chaired the advisory committee overseeing the development of the covenant, said the precise line between acceptable and unacceptable practices is not clear. For example, he said, what's the difference between saying that "Christ is the only way to salvation," and saying, "I believe if you don't accept Christ as the way to salvation, you will go to hell"?

David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who advised InterVarsity during this dispute, said the "haziness" around the policy could still chill evangelicals from speaking about their faith.

"People talk about all kinds of other stuff -- politics, sports, all kinds of contentious things. Then someone bring up Jesus, and suddenly . . . "

But there is a difference when it comes to matters of faith, Borelli said. "You're talking about one's convictions as one relates to God," he said. "So you're talking about something profound to our being, our position of faith, to our relations with God. That would be the qualitative difference."

Robert Smith, director of the spiritual student center at Penn State University, said schools are writing policies like Georgetown's because the U.S. religious climate is changing so quickly. Penn State polls show the percentage of students who call themselves religious or spiritual has been rising, as has the number of religious groups.

Penn State is one of only a few public institutions with an ethics policy for faith organizations, he said. The policy, however, is vaguer than Georgetown's, requiring groups not "to coerce or diminish."

According to the Association for College and University Religious Affairs, a group of chaplains and deans of religious life, policies about evangelizing in the past tended to be less specific and more positive, focusing on respecting one another's beliefs more than laying out what is prohibited.

Nathanael Oakes, who was involved with evangelical student groups at Georgetown until graduating this spring, said many people his age believe that the "broadcasting-your-message" evangelism style of previous generations is an ineffective way to spread the loving word of God.

"The goal isn't the number of Christians -- the goal is to love the people God has placed in your life," he said.

He and Brown cited a term that has become the buzzword of evangelism today for many faiths: relational. That means sharing your faith in the context of a close relationship. Another expression that has become trendy in Christian youth magazines and blogs and on T-shirts is one attributed to 13th century Saint Francis of Assisi: "Preach the gospel; if necessary, use words."

Because Christians feel the need to "self-censor" their talk about God, Brown said, young people now are putting more emphasis on "being more radical in their acts of service," such as in work with the poor and sick.

The debate reaches far beyond campuses to evangelicals like Hugh Holmes, a 42-year-old government auditor from Bowie who sees shying from straight talk about salvation as akin to strolling past a burning house. After work or on weekends, he goes to popular outdoor spots to evangelize. He believes that "yelling" doesn't work, so he uses a sketchboard and magic tricks to attract people.

On a D.C. sidewalk recently, Holmes reenacted a few faith-sharing approaches he uses. One involves three pieces of rope that at first appear to be of different lengths but when flipped around in Holmes' hands become equal. As he did this trick, he explained that while some people believe there's such a thing as a "small sin" that won't keep them from heaven, God sees all sin as being of the same size.

"People are much more visual; they don't want to hear [about] hellfire and brimstone. . . . But what's important to me is eternal life, salvation," he said. "If they don't want to hear it, walk away. At the end of the day, there is no real difference between proselytizing and evangelizing."

In writing the new policy, Georgetown looked at previous major efforts, including a 1989 statement by the World Evangelical Fellowship that condemned "deceptive proselytizing" to Jews and a 1997 statement by a Catholic-Pentecostal summit saying the term "proselytism . . . has come to carry a negative meaning associated with an illicit form of evangelism."

Borelli said that no specific complaints led to the new policy and that it was written simply to "clarify." However, several professors and students in the evangelical groups said there have been confrontations over the subject for years.

Even with a new policy, the question of what constitutes acceptable evangelizing is "definitely ongoing," said Clyde Wilcox, a government professor at Georgetown whose research focuses on evangelical Americans.

While the younger generation "is much more about quiet witness rather than consigning you to hell," he said, it's not clear if the switch is one of style or substance. "I don't think there is a shift in theological beliefs."



To: DMaA who wrote (212882)7/22/2007 3:05:10 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794176
 
"Shaheed" is not an English word.

Either is Jihad. Maybe you'd prefer to call all fatal Muslim adventures crusades.

Martyr and Shaheed describe radically different things. Where is the passionate advocate for clear precise language we all know and love?