Robert Spencer on Michael Coren's Sun TV show: selective law enforcement in UK, Islamic honor killings, and more

O.K. Axiom, you're on - disprove it.

Thats not what Robert said, he said 91% around the world and 96% in Europe of honor (i hate that word) killings are by muslims.

Retaliation meaning life for a life. Saying you cannot get the death penalty for committing a crime is not the same as saying it's allowed to commit the crime.

Rather than twisting passages from books of fiqh, can someone find a fatwa that says that honor killing is allowed? I can only find ones that say they aren't.

Sikh man kills daughter

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/02/12/sikh-dad-strangled-daughter-who-was-in-relationship-with-white-soldier-115875-22916889/

Hindu kills daughter

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1405020.php/Father_kills_daughter_in_honour_killing_in_western_India

He said, referring to honor killings in the West, "there is NO incidence among non-muslim parents of killing their children because they stained family honor." The case in the first link I posted happened in Britain last year.

Hello Axiom, are you a Muslim believer? I am an ex-Muslim.

Axiom, are you aware that Muhammad was an evil madman and not at all the messenger of god? It is true, my freind. The Islamic texts document the fact that Muhammad was also a rapist, a murderer, a child molester, a looter, and a rabid anti-Semite, etc.

Muhammad also said that his followers should kill those who leave Islam. Do you think that I should be killed for leaving Islam, Axiom? If not, why? Why would you refuse to believe the teachings of your ‘perfect religion’ and fail to obey your ‘perfect prophet’ in this instance?

Are you a liar, Axiom? Or are you simply in denial? Which one is it, my friend?

Axiom, check out ex-Muslim Ali Sina’s ongoing challenge to Muslims over at Faith Freedom.org:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/category/the-challenge/

Why are you attacking Axiom for pointing out a legitimate thing? Robert did indeed say what Axiom quoted and could be pounced upon as leverage to discredit him.

Honor killing: is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. Honor killings are directed mostly against women and girls, but have been extended to men.

The perceived dishonor is normally the result of one of the following behaviors, or the suspicion of such behaviors: dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community, wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice, especially if to a member of a social group deemed inappropriate, engaging in heterosexual acts outside marriage and engaging in homosexual acts. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees state that claims made by LGBT persons often reveal exposure to physical and sexual violence, extended periods of detention, medical abuse, threat of execution and honour killing."[2]

A quick google search can bring up many stories about honor killings for homosexuality alone...

Ok, well you have to actually do some digging... but that's just one example.

Axiom, no doubt honor killing do occur in Sikh a Hindu families. The difference is that Sikhs and Hindus look at these people as murders and criminals. They are captured and prosecuted. Both Sikh and Hindu religion do not support honor killing, for us life is sacred and a parent who kills their child is a criminal and a monster. These crimes seem to have been learned from the muslims who freely engage in this practice. Anyway I do hope both of these people who have done these honor killing were prosecuted fully.

Canada is an exception where there is active vocal Muslim dissidents' voice where these debates can happen even though there is the usual politically correct forces trying to shut down , prosecute, and impose censorship on free speech.

My reason for pointing out such incidents committed by non-Muslims was not to justify Muslims doing it. Rather, it was in response to Robert's statement at 10:40 "there is no incidence among non-Muslims of parents killing children because they have stained the family honor. This is a uniquely Islamic concept"

"Honor killings" are condemned by Muslims as well.

desidude, "honor killings" are regarded as a crime in the Shari'a as well. The quote from "Reliance of the Traveler" is from the exceptions to the law of retaliation. That is, a parent cannot be killed for killing their child (in the Shafi'i school of fiqh). That does NOT mean it is allowed to kill your children. It is still a crime and they are taken to court.

Again, I would like to see if anyone can provide a fatwa that says "honor killings" are allowed in Islam. Here are some that say they are not:

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/101972/honor%20killing
(Islam QA: Salafi/Wahhabi)

http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=776d261aa55722563c2b425b929a0076
(AskImam: Deobandi Hanafi)

http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=10&ID=15814&CATE=88
(Sunnipath: Hanafi and Shafi'i)

In an Islamic state the punishment for apostasy is death. However the punishment can only be carried out by the state.

Hi Axiom

The two links you provided are not evidence of honour killing in other cultures.

They are examples of Filicide, the murder by a parent of a son or daughter.

Neither article quotes the perpetrator(s) as saying the act was committed to avenge or reestablish family honour. It is obvious that the murderers were pi**ed-off because the child was not obeying what they wanted but that is not a sufficient condition to establish honour killing.

Compare these stories with the following quote from an article in the Middle East Quarterly (DECEMBER 2000 • VOLUME VII: NUMBER 4 "Honor" Murders – Why the Perps Get off Easy by Yotam Feldner)

On May 31, 1994, Kifaya Husayn, a 16-year-old Jordanian girl, was lashed to a chair by her 32-year-old brother. He gave her a drink of water and told her to recite an Islamic prayer. Then he slashed her throat. Immediately afterward, he ran out into the street, waving the bloody knife and crying, 'I have killed my sister to cleanse my honor.'

Here we have the perpetrator making the overt claim that his honour has been restored by the murder. That makes sense because the community itself has to know he has been 'purified'.

Furthermore, in the second of your links it is clear that neighbours tried to prevent the murder:

When some locals tried to come to her rescue, Bhadodiya pulled her inside the house and killed her with an axe, the report said.

In most societies, of which I am familiar, the practice of 'Honour killing' is not only the responsibility of the family whose honour has been compromised but also the responsibility of the community in which the family lives. Jihad Watch covered this aspect of honour killing recently:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/family-in-pakistan-attacked-terrorized-for-refusing-to-carry-out-honor-killing.html

So, at the moment, I would say that the two 'Hindu' stories you provided are not evidence of anything other than premeditated murder or filicide.

For Jihad Watch readers who are interested in the topic of honour killing, the following articles may be useful:

http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm

http://www.meforum.org/50/honor-murders-why-the-perps-get-off-easy

http://www.meforum.org/2745/problem-of-honor-killings

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html

Syed Kamran Mirza, a former Muslim, who wrote the first article above certainly considers honour killing to be integral to Islam.

PJTV just released a video from its Trifecta series on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4dz1gYjKw&feature=g-all

By the way, I can find a few fatwas (recent) that say that 'honour killing' is not Islamic but I have yet to find a fatwah condemning anyone who has committed an honour killing.

That suggests (but does not prove)that the clerics themselves approve of honour killing. If so, the fatwas saying honour killings are not part of Islam are meaningless. They are at best PR pronouncements to make Islam appear more 'enlightened' than it actually is.

Has anyone at Jihad Watch found an example of a fatwah issued against an honour killer? If yes, please post its Internet link. I would like to follow up on it.

Axiom, you wrote: "In an Islamic state the punishment for apostasy is death. However the punishment can only be carried out by the state."

Sure; I guess it's okay then, right?

On the technical point, your statement is misleading at best.

Muhammad ordered Muslims to kill anyone who leaves Islam; he did not say that only the "state" or leadership could do the killing.

Also note that Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader of an Islamic state who gave permission to any Muslim anywhere to kill Salman Rushdie.

According to the Reliance of the Traveller, the Caliph has discretion as to whether or not to "discipline" (Chapter O-8.3; Chapter O-17) someone who kills an apostate and thus usurps the Caliph's authority (Chapter O-8.3); or if he decides to discipline, how severe that discipline may be within a specified limit. (And note the penalty, if one is given at all, is a technical one for usurping the Caliph's authority; there is no penalty for killing an apostate per se). In general, according to what is suggested for discipline, the Caliph may choose not to punish the killer at all; or he may issue a verbal reprimand, or some other minor penalty that does not exceed forty lashes. However, in the case of the vigilante killing an apostate, I find it highly unlikely that a Caliph's discretion would lead him to the maximum penalty allowable as discipline (40 lashes), insofar as the Caliph's discretion is based on a thorough reading of the relevant materials from the Quran and Hadith. (E.g., the Caliph would have to take into account such things as that the Quran says the disbelievers, including apostates, will have no protectors on earth; and that of course in the Hadith Muhammad orders Muslims to kill apostates who do not repent and return to Islam).

This makes it clear that under Islam there is and should be no significant deterrent for killing an apostate (adult male who is of sound mind and does not repent), and indeed the Caliph may issue no penalty at all.

Here's what the Reliance of the Traveller says:

"O-8.1
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
O-8.2
In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed
O-8.3
If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o-17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
O-8.4
There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)."

Axiom,

The following actions are illegal and punishable by death under sharia:

-apostasy
-homosexual sex
-adultery
-sex or marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man

"Honor killings" may happen to include killing someone who committed any of the above. The only violation of Islamic law in killing people who commit such acts then is a technical one regarding the vigilante aspect of the killing. The official Islamic penalties are then drastically reduced or waived entirely, due to the fact that the killer killed someone who, according to Islam, deserved to die.

Indeed, the killer could have saved himself or herself the trouble of direct killing by turning the "sinner" (i.e., apostate, homosexual, etc.) over to the Islamic authorities, who would have put the "sinner" to death under the auspices of the appropriate official Islamic mumbo jumbo. In my books, that's still murder.

The other major type of honor killing, where the family member(s) kill a teenaged girl or young woman (or less commonly a teenaged boy or young man) who is believed to have committed fornication, or excessive flirting, or clear violation of dress codes, etc., does not correspond with a direct penalty of death in Islamic law. However, consider these following points:

1. The penalty for fornication in Islam is flogging or whipping of 100 stripes, without mercy, and banishment for a year. Note that the 100 stripes without mercy can, incidentally, result in death, even if that is not the intention of the person doing the whipping. Yet the fact that the stripes are to be delivered "without mercy" (24:2) clearly indicates that "Allah" (author of the Quran) knows that death is one of the possible outcomes of the punishment. Why didn't the Quran say one, three, or even ten stripes? Why 100 stripes, which can kill a person? And why doesn't the passage say "...but make absolutely sure not to kill the person"? It doesn't say that. It just says give 100 stripes without mercy, and the implication is that the fate of punished one is left to "Allah."

2. The behavior of teenaged and young Muslim women can violate Islamic law in numerous ways, including in ways that may constitute apostasy. In some schools of Islamic law, the penalty for a female who leaves Islam after she has reached puberty (and is sane and refuses to return to Islam) is death. Violating the Islamic dress codes, socializing romantically with non-Muslim men and insufficiently Muslim or corrupted Muslim men, disobeying parents, or saying things counter to Islam in family arguments over these issues, could all add up to an apostasy.

Consider again what may constitute apostasy in Islam; I cite just three examples from a long list in the Reliance of the Traveller:

"7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b-7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;"

"14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B-7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u-2.4);"

"16- to revile the religion of Islam;"

Someone who kills his daughter or sister merely because she did not wear the appropriate Islamic covering (as stated in the Quran and Hadith), along with flirting with inappropriate boys, or complained that her parents were being too strict, etc., could easily claim that she violated Islam and thus had apostatized, and thus was deserving of death. This overlaps extensively with "honor killing", even if "vigilante Islamic justice" is technically a more accurate term for it.

3. The best that someone could argue in defense of Islam, based on orthodox traditional Islamic law, based on Quran and Hadith, is that, instead of definitely killing the unmarried Muslim girl/young woman who has sexual relations with a Muslim boy/man, as would happen in an "honor killing", the punishment is "merely" that the family will turn her over to the Islamic state which will flog her with 100 stripes, which may or may not kill her. This seems to be quite a weak defense: "In Islam, we don't 'honor kill' Muslim girls who get out of line; we instead whip them with 100 stripes and let 'Allah' decide whether they live or die."

4. While the sources you cite (fatwas or opinions) mention that it a grave sin to kill a Muslim, they carefully avoid the issue at hand. Namely, they avoid the issue of defining whether or not those who are killed in "honor killings" are also "those who Allah has forbidden to be killed." As I already mentioned, apostates, homosexuals, adulterers, and Muslim women who voluntarily have relations with a non-Muslim man, are not forbidden to be killed; they are to be killed under classical Islam.

The Quran and Hadith have something to say about this: In the Hadith Muhammad says that the killing of a Muslim is not permitted except in punishment for (a) killing a Muslim, (b) committing adultery, or (c) committing apostasy. In the Quran, killing is not permitted except for a "just cause" (e.g., Q 17:33) or to punish/fight the spread of "mischief" in the land or to stop those who war against Allah and Muhammad (Q 5:32-33). (For this discussion we can put aside war against Allah and Muhammad, since that generally refers to violent crimes). Let's look at "just cause" and "spreading mischief" (or corruption) in the land (or "on earth"). In Iran, spreading "corruption on earth" can include a variety of things, even including participating in a pornographic movie. That is punishable by death. Thus if an unmarried Muslim woman participates in a pornographic movie, she can be killed by the Islamic state which uses the "mischief/corruption" clause in Quran 5:32-33.

Unfortunately, all kinds of other behaviors and words can also be brought into the category "spreading mischief," such as blasphemy, or the promotion throughout society of just about anything that endangers the continued faith and belief of Muslims. According to the Quran, if Muslims lose their faith and then die, then they lose their souls--the worst thing that can happen to them. If Muslims lose their faith then the Islam project dies. It is worse than the killing of all humankind (cf. 5:32), because even if all humankind were killed, the true believers among them would still keep their souls, according to the Quran. The Quran says

66:6 "O you who believe! save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels stern and strong, they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded."

It is more important for Muslims to protect their souls than to protect their (earthly) lives. They must be willing to sacrifice their lives to save their souls (4:66, 9:111) and defend the Islam project. And this mentality is one of the reasons why there are so many honor killings among Muslims.

Anyways, the spread of many kinds of ideas, expressions, and behaviors that go against Islam threatens to undo the faith of Muslims and thus doom them to the fires of hell while destroying the Islam project. Therefore Muslims have to strictly regulate the spread of specific ideas and behaviors that undermine or threaten the Islamic social and legal order. The sorts of ideas and behaviors expressed by the victims of honor killings are the sorts of things deemed to threaten the future fidelity of Islam. To prevent this spread of mischief/corruption (fasad; 5:32-33) and fitnah (e.g., 8:39) which could destroy Islam, Muslims are permitted to kill, either within the context of sharia or jihad. It is the same principle for killing apostates and blasphemers--Muslims must protect the Islamic memeplex at all costs.

5. Even if you ignore the broad theological considerations in 4 above, there is the issue of motivation. Even if we accept that Islam does not permit Muslim parents to kill their daughters for romantically socializing with boys and flouting dress codes etc., we must accept the fact that mainstream Islam considers these behaviors of the daughters to be at minimum wrong and deserving of punishment--if not constituting outright apostasy. Now the fact that the behaviors of the daughters are considered evil, or sinful, or wrong, and punishable, in Islam, provides the theological motivation for the parents to want to punish their daughters. The parents do not have to have ever read a book of fiqh; all they need to do is absorb from the Islamic culture and the Friday khutbas etc., these ideas and accept them. Once they've done that, they are set in the direction of punishing their daughters (which Islam explicitly permits), for whom the parents are responsible, and for whom (according to the Quran) Islam must trump family; the only question is exactly what they do by way of punishment. In other words, Islamic ideology contributes to the mentality that expresses "honor violence", which can in turn lead to honor killing.

6. The fact that in Islamic law parents are given lesser penalties or no penalty for killing their children, is certainly an enabler of honor killing.

7. Let's put it this way: Considering all the types of honor killing I mentioned above, it would be a lot easier for Muslims to reject honor killings and honor violence were it not for Islam and its strict regulations and harsh penalties for fornication, adultery, etc. Regarding the attempt to stop or greatly reduce honor killings worldwide, Islam is probably the largest factor impeding this attempt.

Hey Peter

I wanted to disprove Robert's statement that "there is no incidence among non-Muslims of parents killing children because they have stained the family honor. This is a uniquely Islamic concept"

So I pulled those two cases from the Wikipedia article on honor killing. But by your definition a murder is only an honor killing if the perpetrator mentions honor as a motive. So I searched some more...

"Both belonged to the same caste and lived in the same neighbourhood, adding to Ranvir's perception that his family had been "dishonoured" "
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-132284.html

"On July 23 night when Geeta found Rekha in a compromising position with Kailash, she lost her temper and in a bid to save the family's prestige hacked her daughter to death,"
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/uttarpradesh/Honour-killing-Girl-hacked-to-death-by-mother/Article1-564980.aspx

Regarding the link you gave about the Pakistani family that was terrorized for refusing to murder their daughter, I was already aware of the story. An extract from that article:

"According to the Kainat family's account, the tribal elders declared her kari, (which literally means black female), for losing her virginity outside marriage.
...
"These are matters of honor and the leaders call a jirga and they declare that the woman or the couple should be killed," said Abdul Hai, a veteran field officer for the Human Rights Commission in Pakistan. "

It is obvious from the above that this is a tribal practice and is not an implementation of Islamic law!

As for the article by Mirza, none of the textual evidence he provides shows that honor killing is allowed. Basically what he says is that the texts against adultery and promiscuity in the Qur'an and hadith motivate people to commit honor killings.

I do acknowledge that the majority of "honor killings" are done by Muslims, I just did not agree that they are done only by Muslims.

What do you mean by "I have yet to find a fatwah condemning anyone who has committed an honour killing"? A fatwa is not a death sentence or arrest warrant. A fatwa is an Islamic legal verdict. From the three fatwas I found:

1) Conclusion of IslamQA fatwa:

"Based on this, that which is called “honour killing” is a transgression and wrongdoing, because it is killing one who does not deserve to be killed, namely the virgin if she commits zina (fornication), but the shar’i punishment in her case is flogging and banishment for one year, not execution, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “(The punishment for zina) of a virgin with a virgin person is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.” Narrated by Muslim. The one who kills her has killed a believing soul whom Allaah has forbidden to be killed, and there is a stern warning concerning that, as Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who invoke not any other ilaah (god) along with Allaah, nor kill such person as Allaah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse ___ and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.

The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace”

[al-Furqaan 25:68-69]

Even if we assume that she deserves to be executed (if she was previously-married and committed zina), no one should do that but the ruler – as stated above. Moreover, in many cases killing is done on the basis of accusations and speculation, without proving whether the immoral action even took place."

2)AskImam fatwa:
"Islam does not give permission to any individual to kill a family or clan member based on his belief that the victim brought dishonour upon the family, clan, or community. Only the Islamic Court can carry out the punishments (hudood) set out by the Shariah. (See: Shaami 6/104, Darul Ma’rifa)

If someone’s family member does an act contrary to the teachings of Islam, then it is his responsibility to amicably stop the person from violating the injunctions of the Shariah and to advise him/her.

A person who accuses another of committing adultery and cannot bring four witnesses who clearly saw the act taking place, is guilty of falsely accusing someone of adultery, the punishment for which is being flogged with eighty stripes. (This punishment, too, is to be carried out by the Court).

Allah, the Exalted, says:

Flog those who accuse any of the chaste women (of committing adultery), but fail to backup (their charges) with four eyewitnesses -- flog them with eighty lashes, and thereafter do not accept their testimony ever again. Surely, they are the wicked ones. (Quran 24:4)

According to Islam, the punishment for wrongfully killing someone is very severe:

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever). And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (Quran 4:93)

In short, honour killing is not permitted according to Islam. Encyclopaedia Britannica has correctly stated:

“Such “honour killings” are in fact violations of both civil and Islamic law, but perpetrators frequently use religious reasons to defend their actions, thereby giving the crime a veneer of justification.” "

3) Sunnipath fatwa
"As for honor killing, this must go through the courts, the Sacred Law doesn't give individuals the right to kill someone like this and if they do so, then they have committed a major sin and should be taken to court for it."

I fail to see how these fatwas show that Islamic scholars approve of honor killings. A fatwa is given by scholars to advise Muslims, usually in response to a query. If you think that these fatwas are attempts to make Islam appear "more enlightened" then I advise you to read the other fatwas on those sites.

It does not matter that they are recent, I gave three conservative Islamic opinions. The IslamQA site is Salafi, run by Sheikh Salih al-Munajjid, and is based in Saudi Arabia. AskImam is Deobandi Hanafi, led by Mufti Ebrahim Desai, and is based in South Africa. Sunnipath is Hanafi and Shafi'i and includes many scholars from around the world.

It seems you don't know what a fatwa is. (Again, it's not a death sentence) You won't find fatwas against honor killers, murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. However, you will find fatwas against honor killing, murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.

Everything you said has to do with Muslims in an Islamic state. If someone apostates from Islam then he is to be killed by the state. If someone else kills him then the killer is disciplined for overstepping into the ruler's authority. The killer would not be tried as a murderer because of the hadith:
"The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Of course if it's outside of an Islamic state, then the killer will be judged by the law of the state he is in. I don't care what Khomeini said, he was a Shia and so his rulings are not followed by the majority of Muslims in the world.

Axiom,

The Shia don't matter? I care about what Khomeini (and his successors) said, because there are enough Muslims willing to follow his orders that we ought to be concerned.

"Of course if it's outside of an Islamic state, then the killer will be judged by the law of the state he is in."

Unfortunately the west is beginning to bend in the direction of accepting elements of sharia.

"Everything you said has to do with Muslims in an Islamic state. If someone apostates from Islam then he is to be killed by the state."

That was my focus; however, there are broader implications. While Muslims are (1) required to follow the laws of the land in which they are dwelling, there is also in Islam (2) a competing requirement for them to (a) not follow un-Islamic laws and customs unless they are forced, and (b) to press for as much sharia or sharia-compliance/compatibility as they can manage, all in the context of da'wa and the spread of Islam. So what we see in the west are some Muslims who are fairly content with (1), but others who are more inclined toward (2) and are thus carving out Islamic enclaves in which Islamic law is increasingly enforced. The governing of the family unit may be seen within the context of (2) and western countries allowances for religious accommodations etc..

You are correct that apostasy, adultery, and homosexual sex (according to the majority of scholars) deserves the death penalty in an Islamic state. I'm not familiar with the fourth case you've mentioned.

However for adultery (and I assume homosexuality), contrary to what you said, there is a difference between killing them yourself and taking them to court. If you take them to court, four witnesses need to testify to having seen the act occur in order for them to be labelled adulterers. If you cannot provide four witnesses then you get 80 lashes.
If you kill them then it is not the same as "killing someone who deserved to die" since to prove they really did commit adultery you need 4 witnesses.

1. As for flogging, it should not result in death. See the following fatwa:
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/13233/

I believe this quote is sufficient:
It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he said: Moderate blows with a moderate whip. Not so harsh as to kill and not so weak as to be no deterrent. He should not raise his arm completely, or keep it so low that it causes no pain. Ahmad said: His armpit should not show in any of the hudood punishments, i.e., he should not raise his arm so high, because the point is to discipline him, not kill him.

2. The issue of apostasy is not as simple as that. Those actions may constitute apostasy, but in order for the person to be executed there needs to be definitive proof of apostasy. The person needs to publicly make his or her apostasy known.

3. Again, the flogging should not kill her. Also if the accuser does not provide four witnesses they receive 80 lashes.

4. You must have missed it:
IslamQA:
Based on this, that which is called “honour killing” is a transgression and wrongdoing, because it is killing one who does not deserve to be killed,
...
Even if we assume that she deserves to be executed (if she was previously-married and committed zina),...

AskImam:
According to Islam, the punishment for wrongfully killing someone is very severe:
If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever). And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (Quran 4:93)
In short, honour killing is not permitted according to Islam.

Obviously the reason they mention the verse is because those who are killed in "honor killings" are wrongfully killed.

Regarding "spreading mischief" (5:33), I don't care what Iran says about it. They are Shia and do not represent the majority of Muslims. Your interpretation that it refers to "just about anything that endangers the continued faith and belief of Muslims" is baseless.

From the tafsir of 5:33 in Ma'ariful Qur'an by Mufti Shafi Usmani:

In short, the punishment mentioned in the first verse (33) applies to robbers and rebels who ruin public peace by attacking with armed group force and break the law of the land openly. As obvious, this could appear in many forms. So, everything from aggression against property and honour to killing and bloodshed is included within its sense. It is from here that we find out the difference between Muqatalah and Muharabah. Muqatalah refers to a bloody fight, though with actual killing or without, and though property is also looted as an adjunct. The word, Muharabah is used in the sense of spreading disorder by employing force and causing the destruction of public peace and safety. Therefore, this word is particularly used to denote high-handed and group-led intrusion into anything relating to the life, property and honour of people which is called highway looting, robbery and rebellion.

Similary, "just cause" (17:33) does not mean "just about anything".
In the tafsir of 17:33 in Ma'ariful Qur'an, unjust killing is explained using the same hadith you mentioned (killing a Muslim is not lawful except for three situations...)

5. True, but that won't change the fact that Islamically they still are not allowed to kill their child. Also harshness in punishment is not allowed and you can't hit the face.
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/3347

6. True, but since there is no specific punishment in the Sharia (as far as I know), it should the duty of the state to adopt a punishment (less than death) that will be sufficiently deterrent.

7. No, it is people's lack of knowledge about Islam that leads them to commit these crimes.

I disagree with Khomeini's fatwa because I believe that an apostate is only to be killed in the Islamic state, since Muslims must follow the law of the land they are living in.

What elements of sharia is the west bending in the direction of accepting? It is absurd to foresee any non-Muslim country allowing Muslims to kill apostates from Islam.

"What elements of sharia is the west bending in the direction of accepting? It is absurd to foresee any non-Muslim country allowing Muslims to kill apostates from Islam."

The west is bending most in the direction of accepting Islamic laws and values in regards to blasphemy and expressions about Islam and Muhammad. This is happening both through informal and through legal and quasi-legal channels.

It is not absurd to foresee a non-Muslim country allowing Muslims to kill apostates from Islam for at least these reasons that I can think of at the moment:

-Historical precedents. Numerous countries/regions that were once non-Muslim are now Muslim-majority and have the death penalty for apostates.

-Several western countries are developing large Muslim enclaves in which sharia is being enforced. In addition, many of these non-Muslim countries may have Muslim majorities by mid-century or by the end of this century. When you have a Muslim majority, like you have in Egypt, you tend to get Islamist parties that can be voted into power. Once they get there, they can implement sharia more fully.

-large percentages of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy.

-the Islamic world's trajectory over the past few decades is toward increasing Islamization and revival of classical Islamic laws, and the Muslim communities in the west and in other predominantly non-Muslim areas (e.g., India, China) are subject to this influence.

-there are already numerous instances of death threats to apostates and those deemed to have insulted Islam and Muhammad.

-the west is not putting up any major resistance to any of these trends

Hi Axiom. Thanx for the reply.

It sounds like you took my words out of context regarding what constitutes honour killing. You interpreted me as follows: by your definition a murder is only an honor killing if the perpetrator mentions honor as a motive. So I searched some more..."

What I was saying is that you can't use the two examples you provided as proof to Davegreybeard that honour killings happen outside of Islam. As reported in the articles there is only proof of murder or filicide.

In the second story the news headline used the phrase 'honour killing' but gave no evidence of that fact in the story. I think the press may be using this phrase as a portmanteau for intra-family murder. I suspect they also use it because its presence catches more eyes and sells more newspapers than the 'mundane' word murder.

In order for a murder to be an honour killing there must be evidence that the perpetrator was convinced that his/her honour could be redeemed by committing murder.

A public statement, as in my example from Mideast Quarterly, would be a good indicator that honour may have been involved in the murder BUT it is not necessarily sufficient to prove the act was an honour killing .

For instance, if the perpetrator killed his sister out of maliciousness he might realize he would get the death penalty if convicted. In such a case it would be to his advantage to claim he did it for honour. Considering the killing took place in Jordan he would face a minimum sentence if convicted.

So you have to look closely at the story to determine whether something is plain vanilla murder or honour killing, not that there really is a difference between the two.

Regarding your two new links, I do accept the first as proof of honour killing. There is evidence that the courts of India are worried about the khap panchayats condoning murder for cross-caste marriages. Also, police protection at the wedding shows that law enforcement is aware of the problem.

The second story I wouldn't categorize as an honour killing. I base this on the following segment from the story:

"Rekha was having an affair with his neighbour Kailash Yadav and she was caught in a compromising position with him several times by her mother Geeta," Tiwari said.

He said that Geeta asked Rekha to mend her ways, but the latter continued with her relationship with Kailash.

The fact that the 'transgressions' against family honour were noted several times and admonishments were made several times indicates that honour was NOT at the core of the murder. Also, as the article says Kailash lost her temper. It was temper that led to the death, a parent trying to control a disobedient child that caused the murder. This was a crime of passion pure and simple. Afterwards the perp claimed she did it for honour to dignify an action that just can't be dignified.

In any case, the first article proves the point you were trying to make.

Your argument regarding Kari may be off the mark. Pakistan is an Islamic country, soooooooooo, if murders are taking place under this precept and neither the Pakistani Government nor the Islamic Clerics take remedial action, what does that tell you about Islam and its stand on honour killings?

The following Amnesty International report deals with Pakistan and the murder of girls and women.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA33/018/1999/en/9fe83c27-e0f1-11dd-be39-2d4003be4450/asa330181999en.pdf

As Amnesty describes the situation:

"The Government of Pakistan has failed to take measures to prevent and end honour killings. It has not sought to eradicate traditions which prescribe honour killings nor ended the virtual impunity of perpetrators of such killings."

Regarding your intent to keep Robert honest that's okay by me and I would suspect that's okay with most Jihad Watchers. Hopefully, you want to keep everyone honest at Jihad Watch. Doing so can only make this great site even greater.

Having said that, I think it would have been better to phrase it as keep him (and us) accurate. Implicit in the phrase 'keep honest' is the thought that someone was deliberately dishonest. That thought doesn't apply to Robert Spencer.

You said "What do you mean by "I have yet to find a fatwa condemning anyone who has committed an honour killing"? A fatwa is not a death sentence or arrest warrant. A fatwa is an Islamic legal verdict. "

Again you took me out of context. I never said a fatwa is a death sentence.

I did say: By the way, I can find a few fatwas (recent) that say that 'honour killing' is not Islamic but I have yet to find a fatwah condemning anyone who has committed an honour killing.

First, it should be clear to anyone reading this that the fatwa on honour killings would have nothing to do with issuing a death sentence it would be a ruling on the status of honour killings within Islam.

Second, in the last part of the sentence I talk about condemning not killing or executing. You can be condemned to death but you can be condemned to 10 years hard labour. Condemn can also just mean express extreme disapproval.

I was merely saying that there seems to be no evidence that the fatwas about honour killing vs. Islam are anything more than a public relations gimmick to suck the West in. These rulings offer 'plausible deniability' to Islamist apologists.

Proof to the contrary would be the existence of fatwas condemning honour killers for breaking Islamic law.

I was hoping someone could send me some links that showed the existence of this type of fatwa so I could do some research on the topic.

By the way, the text from the AskImam site convinces me even more that the fatwa about honour killing is just PR.

AskImam says:

"According to Islam, the punishment for wrongfully killing someone is very severe:

If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever). And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him. (Quran 4:93)

Well that kind of stuff is supposed to happen to any wrong doer. If one commits adultery for instance, one still gets punished in this life but they will also get punished in the next one as well.

So murder must also be punished in this life. Are the Imams doing this? Nope, not as far as I've heard.

Hell, the least they could do is issue a fatwa telling each perpetrator that Allah will take vengeance in the afterlife for the transgression and outline what that vengeance will be. Because the Imams are silent (my assumption) on this I feel justified in concluding that Islam condones honour killing.

As long as we are on this topic, recently, Youssef Al-Qaradawy issued a fatwa (death warrant type) against Gadaffi when he was still alive. The reason:

. . . such a penalty is fair after all the Gaddafi-sponsored violence against the Libyan protesters during their uprising.

The link for the new item is:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/6142/Egypt/Politics-/Death-warrant-issued-against-Libyan-President-by-I.aspx

A bit more is contained at this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260423/sheikh-yusuf-qaradawi-issues-fatwa-calling-gadhafis-death/andrew-c-mccarthy

I assume this means that Gadaffi broke the ban on Muslims deliberately killing Muslims and therefore extreme sanction against him was warranted.

There should be examples of similar sanctions against honour killers unless, of course, Islam really does support honour killing.

You said: If you think that these fatwas are attempts to make Islam appear "more enlightened" then I advise you to read the other fatwas on those sites.

Whether there are other fatwas that show that Islam is unenlightened is irrelevant. The fact that there are a few public relations fatwas is the problem. These are the ones that will be used as testimony by Muslim apologists in the West when they talk before government hearings to show that Islam is a religion of peace etc. etc. You know the drill.

They will also be used by Muslims trying to proselytize Westerners. The idea of showing only the 'good' side and not the bad side seems to be a standard trick. If you don't think so, have a look at this video where a Muslim cleric explains how to go about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKs7oi_-NUo

I would think after seeing this video that most rational people would have second thoughts about putting any credence whatsoever in the AskImam fatwa. As the cleric in the video would say:
"That was a nice trick by this good Muslim."

You said It seems you don't know what a fatwa is.

Wrong! The imaginary Peter Shearer in your head who has been forced by you to believe that fatwa means death warrant doesn't know what a fatwa is but the guy named Peter Shearer typing at the keyboard in answer to your response sure does.

Anyway, it was nice talkin' to yah Axiom. Hopefully, I addressed all the issues you raised and thanx for the new links. Talk to ya soon.

Axiom wrote, among reams of other disturbing verbiage:

In short, honour killing is not permitted according to Islam...
...

I fail to see how these fatwas show that Islamic scholars approve of honor killings...
..................................

In many parts of Dar-al-Islam, the courts wink at "honor killings".

A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

The idea that allowing no retaliation for a crime is not the same as condoning it is pretty weak tea. How many more criminals would commit crimes if they knew they would receive no penalty?

Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

"Violated religious [that is, *Islamic*—GI] traditions"—how can that be, if Islam is supposedly so much against "honor killings"?

Here's an Imam actually *leading* an "honor killing" in Pakistan:

"Imam leads honor killing of woman and child in Pakistan"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/imam-leads-honor-killing-of-woman-and-child-in-pakistan.html

How could this Imam possibly become such a "misunderstander" of his own faith?