Do you really have to use the word primitive?

It was a typo. He meant to say "backward".

I meant to say fucked-up, but I decided it was too forceful. Race-segregation is the fucked-up-edness of semi-modern ones. But I will amend for accuracy.

Hyperpatriarchal = primitive, backward, and f---ed up. But perhaps not correct in all places.

MH,

I'd seen it reported elsewhere as well. There are fatawa (pl. of fatwa) from Sunni clerics declaring honor killings as un-Islamic, btw. (Just one example: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543392) The question is usually not one of religious edicts, but of social practice that, if needs be, just ignores said edicts and chooses to "follow" those that are in agreement with what people think SHOULD be right.

Just compare with various Church rulings on things like contraception etc. and the "deviant" practices of the flock ...

Overall, this focus on fatawa falls into the trap of seeing people in the MidEast primarily through the prism of their religious affiliation, as if they would let their lives be 100% controlled by religious norms and the regulations of their clerics.

Btw, while Fadlallah is the most important Shi'ite cleric of Lebanese descent, Hezbollah officially doesn't follow him but Khamene'i (a.k.a. the ruler of Iran). Now, before anyone gets me wrong, I am not implying that HA condones honor killings - they don't & are actually much more "progressive" in those issues than many of their Sunni (as well as Iranian Shi'ite) co-religionists.

In the end - it's a question of local/regional traditions and social norms. Some areas are more "known" for honor killings than others. Jordan seems to be pretty harsh, in the West Bank they have been on the rise (accompanying a general conservativization of society [if I type it, it's a word]), whereas Syria and Lebanon are more "liberal" (although I'm sure they do happen), etc.pp.

--MSK*

I agree; honor-killing was never "Islamic" in the formal sense, on due process grounds alone. Religious legal objections are trumped by social practices all the time, a major point of realism not "gotten" by the He-Man Muslim-Haters Club.

I do think the act of rejection in public is beneficial, something like Pope John XXIII or Vatican II's rejection of the Jews-killed-Jesus semi-doctrine, which while not an official dogma, nonetheless was pervasive in social theological prejudice.

MH,

I mainly do agree with you re: benefit of public rejection. However, as the example of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Egypt shows - where Al-Azhar has declared it to be un-islamic a few times but the population just does it anyway - even clear public rejection by high & revered religious authorities don't necessarily manage to end traditional social practices.

When it comes to such issues - FGM and honor killings etc. - religious authorities are usually quite clearly against it. It's the secular, state authorities who create the legal framework that either condones or at least tolerates such practices.

--MSK*

True. I just think the more frequent, the louder, and more official, and more *authentically* religious, the denunciation, the better it is.

Of course it's fucked up. But for some reason I doubt anybody here would call American society "primitive" because it still condones the death penalty.

(myself included, by the way)

Yaman,

I don't see what this faux political correcteness is about. The practice is primitive and barbaric, and any society tolerating it deserves the label in that context.

Matthew,

Honor killings are definitely not common in North Africa. The first time I heard of them was in my late teen from an American Jew who seems to have memorized the criminal record of every Arab for the last century or so.

"The first time I heard of them was in my late teen from an American Jew who seems to have memorized the criminal record of every Arab for the last century or so."

Shaheen, you must have had a course with Allen Dershowitz?

Primitive is totally ok but too generic and imprecise.

SInce I don't virulently oppose the death penalty I don't consider it primitive.

On the other hand, knee-jerkedly fearing Muslims as happens here is pretty damn primitive for an advanced society.

Shaheen, you must have had a course with Allen Dershowitz?

Hah, not quite. Someone more subtle we both know actually.

re primitive, I wasn't talking about death penalty which I support (though with more safeguards than the US system offers), but about honor killings.

Honour killings generally seem to be a Turkish and Pakistani issue. The more rural the better, of course.

Yaman, I guarantee you a lot of Western Europeans would call the US primitive because it condones the death penalty, and other stuff too. Old Europe anti-american prejudice really. Bush has done nothing but confirm those prejudices.

Shaheen --

Just guessing, in phonic coded form, but ire can be wise?

Matthew,

Hank forbid!

No, Hank doesn't.

Yes.

Klaus,

look up "honor killing" in the Wikipedia - it's by far not "generally a Turkish and Pakistani issue". It's virulent (deliberate choice of word) in Kurdistan (and among Kurdish communities in Europe) but also among tribal-minded people in Palestine, Jordan and the peninsula.

Btw, in Palestine & Jordan it also happens among Christians - so it's really not a "Muslim thing". (Obviously, FGM is completely non-corollary with religion, as it's practiced by Muslim, Christian, and pagan (animalist?) communities alike. [And quite possibly among Ethiopian Jews, although I'm not sure.])

--MSK*

About the religious factor, there was a very nasty honor killing of a young woman in Iraqi Kurdistan this spring, which apparently went out on Youtube or something like that. I haven't seen the video myself, thankfully, but I heard it's something like 200 men smashing this poor girl's head in with rocks in the village square, for hanging out with boys.

That generated a lot of criticism of the Kurdish Regional Gov, and inevitably, a lot of anti-Muslim commentary on blogs and the like -- only, it then turned out the perpetrators (and the victim) weren't Muslims at all, they were Yezidi.

There is a contemplated honor killing, with no explicit religious connection (other than the whole source itself), in Genesis 28:

24And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

O, those dang Palestinians!

Actually the connection between "patrilineal" societies and such summary executions is common.

Rome's founding pagan myth of the Rape of Lucretia has the sense of an honor-suicide.

Shaheen, please spare me your faux "I say what I want and cut through the crap" attitude. If you think that the practice of honor killings is primitive, say so. But saying "The practice of primitive societies of murdering suspect sexually-impure females..." is a vague and weak statement. What is a primitive society? Do all primitive societies oppress women? If a society oppresses women, is it primitive? Then what society is not primitive today? If all societies are primitive, why is it even useful to refer to these ones that kill women in this way in this context as if the rest are not similarly primitive? Or is it only certain methods of oppression and injustice against women that are primitive, while other methods are civilized and advanced? I am not asking here for "understanding" or "justifications" of honor killings, or even silence, nor is this even about honor killings. If anybody was talking about anything else--especially other societies--and used the term "primitive" to describe some value system, it would be similarly ambiguous and messy, not to mention suspect. If the word "primitive" here was so important, I don't think Matthew would have backed down so quickly. The value judgment is still there (which is fine, because my objection was not to the judgment but to the scope), and I think the point comes across much more clearly now with "hyperpatriarchal." If he believes that the original wording is fine or better, I would much appreciate it if he switched it back and argued for it. But I think even he agrees that either the word itself is reckless or that it's not a fight worth picking.

I heard about this on BBC Arabic... they ran a longish segment on it, so it *is* being reported places.

"not a fight worth picking" is the correct answer.

I prefer primitive to "Islamic" because it is not a practice restricted to Muslim societies no derived from the Muslim faith, even though more concentrated there these days, and prefer "primitive" to "traditional" or even "patriarchal" as the latter is too imprecise.

Primitive is correct in terms of economic backwardness and social absence of education etc. But its not a fight worth picking. The term primitive is not especially disparaging, and not at all contemptuous in my book, which is why I chose it over fucked-up which is both. In fact, I had the biblical passage quoted above in mind when I thought primitive.

I tend to think of Eastern Europe as generically primitive. Especially Albania and Romania, but without investigating directly I don't know.

I'm not certain exactly which Islamic states are officially " primitive" but frequent Honor Killings sure ain't a sign of progress.

Backwards rural cretinism, I think is the proper term in my book, for honour killings.

I don't like the word "primitive", since it has acquired a pejorative connotation. Going by the dictionary definition is like saying "Arabs can't be anti-semitic 'cause they're Semites" or "'negro' just means 'black' in Spanish" ...

Btw, other than the self-proclaimed ones (Iran, Sudan, Pakistan) I can't see any "Islamic states" around.

And don't even get me started on "progress" ...

--MSK*

rejection and condemnation is worth recognizing, and the specious reasoning from JihadWatch's Spencer that `If there's a condemnation of it from muslims, it must have been a muslim practice all along, and confirms our prejudices, even if it says what we say they don't say... etc` is ridiculous.

on the verbiage, I would tend to agree with `rural cretinism` and leave it there. My experience in Turkey, most of those who practiced `honour killings` were ill-educated people who had come from the village, and had a tenous connection to Islam and the secular state, but was no less likely amongst `modern and secular` Kurdish or Turkish families than amongst rural Anatolian Sunni Muslims. If anything, the secular Turkish families in Turkey, Germany and the West in general are just as panicked about protecting their daughter's honour (read virginity) while irrationally allowing their boys to run wild... although marriage at 16 definitely is a village thing, strongly discouraged (or well-nigh impossible, on legal and economic grounds) in the cities.

Your mileage may vary

by the way, on a (related) linguistic question, why is 'namus' (used in Ottoman Turkish and still present in Turkey to refer to sexual honour, especially applied to the women of one's family) (apparently from the Greek `nomos` for word or law, for instance used to describe the Torah as both Word of God and Law in Greek ecclesiastical writing) used also in some Arabic dialects - South Yemenese friends told me that it was used for sexual honour there... my suspicion is that the Ottoman presence in the Hijaz passed that word and idea along...

What's interesting about that word and the relation to 'honor killings' is precisely the presence of that practice in the Eastern Churches, not only in Russia and Eastern Europe, but also the Levant - perhaps some continuity with Byzantine practices for women, and connected with the seclusion and shawl that women practiced in 'civilized' Byzantine Christian lands, before the barbaric muslims came along and took their practices and had academic condemnation for keeping these traditions alive... (there's some degree of sarcasm in the above, btw)

"I don't like the word "primitive", since it has acquired a pejorative connotation"

And in the case of honor killings, rightfully so.

ZP,

I don't feel like getting into a "primitive vs. advanced" debate about what constitutes progress. I'd like to call honor killing "wrong" but wouldn't call perpetrators "primitive".

Basically, people who commit honor killings do it 'cause they don't know any better - so it's a question of education, not mental/cultural/social capability.

--MSK*

I recall that some anthropologists/sociologists distinguish between two forms of social morality: personal and communal (probably not the terms they use).

Personal morality has become, in general, the de facto morality of the West, where the focus is on the individual action, intention, feelings of guilt & personal repentance.

Communal morality focuses more on the tribe/family's standing in the community - on honour. Here, the actions of one group member impinges on the entire group, and must be dealt with in that fashion. Honour killings fall into this catagory, where the sexual misconduct of one women impacts on her whole family, and hence she must be killed to redeem her family's/tribe's "honour".

I think it's worth noting that communal morality, although in many ways barbaric and often unjust (in my opinion), makes sense in areas where the formal legal structure is weak and there are strong communities (ie few strangers and people live in the same areas for generations). It provides an outlet to stop disputes from spiralling into chaos and cycles of revenge [if that could happen in the ME & NA].

Although global communication brings everyone into regular contact, it doesn't necessarily change the underlying reasons for maintaining communal morality...

Dan,

I believe it is the difference between Emile Durkheim's repressive and restitutive laws.

Dan,

I believe your are talking about Emile Durkheims repressive and restitutive laws.

I just took a quick look at Emile Durkheim's division between repressive and restitutive laws. It looks a little different from what I was thinking of, and the stuff I encountered was somewhat more recent, but his work is also interesting; I assume his work became a basis for the later studies in the field, so perhaps it was incorporated...

Is it not the case that Fadlallah no longer has much direct influence on Hizballah?

SM,

It's hard to gauge just what influence Fadlallah has on Hizbullah. Certainly not a lot in terms of politics and strategy, but a lot of the rank and file, as well as of HA's constituency, hold him in deep regard and attentively listen to what he says.

HA as an organization uses the Supreme Jurisprudent of Iran as their "source of emulation". Today that's Ali Khamene'i. But on the level of personal religiosity, each Shi'ite makes his/her own choice of whose rulings to follow, just like any Sunni Muslim can choose which fatwa to accept and which to disregard.

Actually, many Lebanese Shi'ites "followed" the Sadr family and now Sistani in Iraq, but others (and obviously there are no statistics) follow Fadlallah, and a third group even other "sources of emulation".

--MSK*

Yeah - I've read that while, technically, Khamenei is the marja for Hizballah, in practice very few Lebanese shiites feel any loyalty to him.

BTW I think it was the "Angry Arab" who pointed out that Israel once tried to bomb Fadlallah's home, despite the fact that he was no longer a part of Hizballah. So much for Zionist omniscience...

Thanks for your reply.

I'd heard that, although Khamenei may in theory be the 'marja' for Hizballah followers, in practice very few of them feel much attachment to him, and as you say individual Lebanese Shia have come up with their own 'sources of emulation'.

"It's hard to gauge just what influence Fadlallah has on Hizbullah. Certainly not a lot in terms of politics and strategy"

Indeed. I think it was "Angry Arab" who described how the IDF targetted Fadlallah - long after he had broken with Hizballah. So much for Israeli omniscience...