Perhaps the greatest secular gift to the world by Judeo-Christian civilization is its seminal concept of the individual, which it raises above the tribe or the collective. In Genesis, we are told that man is made in the image of God. Deuteronomy tells us that “each human by his own sin is to be judged” and “do not punish children for the sins of their fathers.” And of course, the biblical life and teachings of Jesus reflect the deep importance of the individual. Thus was planted in the soil of the West our uniquely heightened respect for the individual.
. . . a few months ago, the increasing British Muslim demands for Shariah law were answered in the positive by the archbishop of Canterbury. If the British government ever succumbs to that outrageous demand, not only will Muslim women lose their individual rights but also, pursuant to honor killing, principals could be murdered legally by their fathers, husbands or brothers.
And they are being murdered in ever increasing numbers:
Dr. Sharif Kanaana, a professor of anthropology at Birzeit University, explains:
What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honor killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What’s behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power.
Unfortunately, relativist multiculturalists provide these men with the tools to justify their brutality by arguing that women opposing it are collaborating with the anti-Muslim Western enemy.
So, in an article on the subject published in Kurdish Iraq we find the argument that fighting for “honor killing” is fighting against alien democracy:
It is indicative that whenever I have discussed the issue with Kurds of either Turkey or Iraq, while they are against killing “in the name of honor,” they do recognize the importance of honor and would rather “solve the problem” by either marriage or sending the girl away. But this apparent “choice” in the eyes of the family is like what Zizek says when he talks about the “choice” between “democracy or fundamentalism,” a forced choice where “you’re free to decide, on condition that you make the right choice.” And he continues: “What is problematic in the way the ruling ideology imposes the choice on us is not ‘fundamentalism’ but, rather, democracy itself; as if the only alternative to ‘fundamentalism’ is the political system of liberal democracy.”
So, the Iraqi parliament refusal to increase the penalty (currently 3 years) for dishonor murder can be misrepresented as an act of cultural defiance. I hope the archbishop of Canterbury is proud of his tolerant view of this Basra father:
Rand Abdel-Qader told her best friend she had fallen for Paul, 22, who she met at a charity for displaced families where she was a volunteer.When her father learned she had been seen SPEAKING to a foreigner he rushed home and butchered her, strangling and stabbing her while screaming that he was “cleansing his honour”.
He was arrested, but Iraqi police took no action. His wife has since left him and is in hiding.
The Ministry of Defence was trying to trace the soldier.
There is no suggestion of any physical relationship, but the case raises questions about the training of British forces. In Basra, 47 women died in “honour killings” last year.
But “training” will not provide the solution. For in Jordan being raped will also get you murdered for dishonor. Only Jail can offer a modicum of security.
The time has come for intellectuals everywhere to unite in opposition to dishonor murders WITHOUT ANY IF OR BUTS. Abhorrence of past colonial sins should not serve as an excuse to justify the current murder of insufficiently submissive women just as it should not become an excuse to revive the Hindu tradition of Sati. Feminists must bite the bullet and admit that some traditional practices are vile.
Enough is enough!
For more on my History News Network blog, click here
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here