Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lebanon cleric bans honor killings

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 12:31 AM
Original message
Lebanon cleric bans honor killings
Source: AP

By HUSSEIN DAKROUB
Associated Press Writer

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric issued a religious edict Thursday banning honor killings, calling the custom of murdering a female relative for sexual misconduct "a repulsive act."

The fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah was a rare condemnation of the practice by a prominent cleric. Fadlallah's office said he issued the statement in response to reports that honor killings were increasing.

"I view an honor crime as a repulsive act, condemned and prohibited by religion," Fadlallah, the most revered religious authority for Lebanon's 1.2 million Shiites, said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press.

In the poorer and more traditional sectors of Middle East society, women are often seen as bearers of the clan's honor and any sex out of wedlock - or sometimes even just dating - is seen as an indelible stain on the family's reputation that can only be cleansed with blood.




Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LEBANON_HONOR_KILLING?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pushed To The Left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good for Fadlallah! And it's about time!
Being against "honor killings" is a no brainer for any civilized human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's curious, since unlike Sunnis, Shiites are more hierarchial.
So a Grand Ayatollah saying this actually has some considerable pull. Not absolute by any means; if you don't like what one Grand Ayatollah preaches, you can always follow another. But this isn't some little shrimp. This will, at very least, make some bigger waves than if a far more local, far less overall influential Sunni cleric randomly made a similar declaration.

(I'm basing my understanding of the religious differences on what I've gleaned from reading from more knowledgeable people like Prof. Juan Cole from his blog.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tchunter Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. more clerics, muftis, imams, etc. etc. should follow up and speak out about this horrific practice
I'm surprised that its happening there now in great number,Lebanon has always been fairly cosmopolitan due to the lasting European influence; feminist literature was widely available having trickled down through the colonial powers and were translated. Underground feminist newspapers existed in the early 1900's. Hell, even Hezbollah isn't all that repressive of women in their enclaves, granted they aren't treated well they have more equality than in some of our allied nations. Have i just been paying more attention to world news in the last few years or have honor killings grown in frequency and location? (I know rural Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and even Germany have grappled with them in recent years.) Is this true and if so, any idea as to why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Still very popular in Egypt
I spent the last 2 years there (mostly).

The local English-language newspaper seemed to run a horrible story about an honor killing every couple of weeks, if not more often.

I remember one because it happened in a farm village near the Nile Delta that was on my daily commute to/from work.

A 17-yr-old girl ran off with her boyfriend. Her father and brother tracked her down in Cairo, and convinced her to come home. They promised she was forgiven, there would be no revenge, etc. etc.

A few days after she came back, in the middle of the main village street with many eyewitnesses, the brother shot her in the head and killed her.

He was arrested, but honor killings are mainly treated with a wink-and-nudge by the Sharia (Islamic) legal system. He will probably do, at most, 2 years in prison where he will be considered a hero for "upholding the family honor." And when he comes back to his village he will also be treated as a hero.

During my 2 years in Egypt, I certainly noticed a trend toward treating females worse. I have seen modestly-dressed Egyptian women, complete with the hijab (headscarf), publicly groped in amazingly crude ways.

Let me be more specific: guys will just walk up and grab their asses.

The reasoning seems to be: if they were "good Muslims," they would have a male family member walking with them for protection. But since they have the unmitigated gall to walk around in public alone, they are ipso facto "bad Muslims" and deserve whatever happens to them.

Why is this happening? Strictly my opinion, but it's probably part of the overall trend toward a more conservative Islam, along with a violent rejection of Western values.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. If it changes one person's mind in one place, that's something
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 02:57 AM by Posteritatis
I don't think anyone here's naive enough to think that's going to carry significant weight outside of Lebanon (or maybe Lebanon and the surrounding area; I have no idea how respected the guy is compared to his peers in the region). But so what?

I'm not going to attack a person for saying "hey, dumbasses, how about not killing people for no good reason!" though. If this guy says that, and if his station gets people to think that might be something worth listening to, then I'm certainly not going to be upset about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I know he's got to be tired as well....
...traveling all the way from the 13th to the 21st century in one fatwa has got to take a lot out of a guy.... (/snark)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. The other 1 billion?
Why that would be like my saying that just because your post is classless and foolish that every person who shares your religion, or atheism, or agnosticism, shares those traits.

We all know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Yes, let's smear an entire religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
21. Placing a reply here for future reference. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Duh. I forgot to preserve the name of the poster. Was he tombstoned already? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. Good elementary step.
But hopefully it will be followed by other publicity and action to stem this evil practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. Good for him. Honour killings are DIShonourable and utterly evil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yay Lebanon!
It takes time, but change does happen, sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-03-07 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. "that can only be cleansed with blood"-----this applies to many actions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. Separation of Church and State occurs, to a degree, among Shiites, but NOT Sunnis
Edited on Sun Aug-05-07 02:56 AM by happyslug
The main reason is the history of the split between the two. When Muhammad was alive, his daughter, Fatima, married Ali (Shiite means "party of Ali). At age 25 Mohammad Married his first wife. All but one if his Children was born to that wife, Khadijah (Mohammad took no other wife as long as Khadijah was alive). Fatima is her daughter, fathered by Mohammad (Khadijah was married two times BEFORE she married Mohammad, and she decided to marry him). Kjadijah was 14 years his Senior in age. At her death Mohammad seems not to have wanted to re-marry, but later did. It appears Mohammad's later marriages either was to take care of widows OR for political reasons (Sometime both). His last wife, and "Favorite" was Aisha, who was the daughter of Abu Bakr (and the only Virgin Wife he took).

I go into the above for it is the background for the split between the Sunni and Shiites. Upon Mohammed's death his followers picked someone other than Ali to succeed Muhammad even through the only child of Mohammad who bore children was Fatima (And Ali was their Father, thus all people who claim descent from Mohammad also are descended from Ali). The Shiites said Mohammad wanted Ali to Succeed him, but the Sunni's said Mohammad wanted his successor picked in the traditional Arab way, by the collection of all his male followers. At the election of Abu Bakr, Ali made his claim but it was rejected and he accepted the decision of the rest of the male followers of Mohammad. Abu Bakr lived less than three years and was succeeded by Umar (Sometimes written as Omar, his full name was Umar ibn al-Khattab"). Umar ruled for 10 years. Umar was succeeded by Uthman ( Full Name Uthman ibn Affan) who ruled for 12 years. Upon an attempted coup by the Arab Governor of Egypt, Uthman was killed and Ali was finally selected as Caliph (Ali would rule for 5 years before being killed). The Killing of both Ali and Uthman appear to be the result of the tribal infighting within the Islamic movement do to all the great wealth it had received since Mohammad's death and the Successive Conquest of Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, North Africa and Egypt. These four Caliphs are consider legitimate Caliphs by the Sunnis. The Shiites believe only Ali should be so considered, but acknowledge Ali did nothing to oppose his three predecessors (Sunnis view this as his acceptance of election as the proper way to select a Successor, Shiites view it was him NOT wanting to shed Moslem blood, which he would have had to do to claim his "right").

After Ali was killed, the family of his predecessor, Uthaman, (the Umayyards, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad) took over. The basis for this was accusation against Ali that he was involved with the death of Uthman. The real reason was that Uthman had put as many relatives as he could in the government so that they were the most powerful family within Islam at the time of Ali's death and used that power to take over (Thus inheritance was as important to the Umayyards as it had been to Ali). Ali's son declined to challenge the Umayyards, do to military weakness OR a desire NOT to kill fellow Moslems (Probably both). Thus technically both Shiites and Sunnis worked together at this time period, but the Shiites viewed Ali and his sons as their leader, while the Umayyard ruled as both Political and Religious Leaders. The Umayyards were more into expanding their fortune than expanding their religion (The family had originally OPPOSED Mohammad). This extended to discouraging conversion to Islam, for they preferred to get the higher taxes a non-Moslem paid. They also supported the old Arab families over any new converts (and opposed the Shiites). In 750 AD the Umayyard lost control of the Caliphs to a combination of Enemies, including the Shiites and Persian converts. This installed the Abbasids. The Abbasids were the ones who firmed up the secondary writing so Sunni Religion and turned what had been a top down religion to one of written books (The Shiites had done this since the time of Ali, but those books had been rejected by the Umayyards and Abbasids as NOT supporting they position of power within the Caliphate.

Thus it was not till the 800s that you see a definite split between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Abbasids had scholars find writings that supported their position. Over time the Abbasids became more and more anti-Shiite. A secondary affect of this is that the Shiite adopted a position that one may support whatever Government one is under AND SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE AS YOUR RELIGIOUS LEADER. At the same time the Abbasid in developing Sunni Islam, adopted a position that the religion and state are one and the same. This is surprising for the Shiites were more exposed to Iranian influence which tended to mix religion and Government up together, while Sunni was exposed to Christianity which had a history of separation between Church and state (More by the Church trying to keep itself independent of the State, then the State becoming independent of the Church).

Since the 800s the Shiites had split into two large groups (They may be others, but small compared to these two groups). The two groups are referred to as the "Sevens" and the "Twelvers". The descendants of Ali had two breaks in their DIRECT linage. One after the death of the Seven Imam (ALi is considered the first) and the other break occurring at the death of the Twelfth Imam. The Twelves are by far the larger of the two groups of Shiites. The Seveners are noted mostly for being the medieval sub-group known as the "Assassins". Most Shiites today ware Twelvers, and given the long history of Suppression by Sunnis, they tend to separate their Government from their Religion much more than Sunnis. When the Iranian Islamic Republic was formed, the Shiite religious leaders had a problem. How do you set up a Shiite Islamic Government. The most successful one in history was the Fatima dynasty in Egypt, but that state was conquered right after the Second Crusade by Sunnis (apparently on a Sunni religious movement in addition to a weak control of Egypt by the Fatimas). The Fatimas had left Sunni religious leaders lead Sunni, as they permitted Christians to lead Christians in Egypt. The Sunni took over and made all Moslem attend Sunni religious program, and while tolerate of Christians, this was to change when the Mamaluks took over after the end of the Third Crusade.

Khomeini thus set up his Islamic Republic, with a Legislature and President elected by the People but from a select group of candidates approved by the Shiite Religious establishment. Furthermore the real power is in hand of the "Supreme Leader" who is the TOP Shiite religious leader in Iran (again selected by the group who decides who can run for President and Legislature). The President is to runt he Country on a day to day basis, but any REAL decision must be made by the "Supreme Leader". Thus the religious leadership does NOT run the Country day to day or even month to month, but had a good say in who makes such decision AND final say in such decision. Many Shiite consider the Islamic Republic of Iran as Heresy, but the best solution on how to set up a Shiite Islamic State (such Shiites are willing to look to other solutions but Iran is the best since the fall of the Shiite Fatima Dynasty of Egypt in the 1200s).

My point here is simple, The Sunnis are into Political and Religious leadership by the same person, who is by definition the leader of both the State and the Church, thus a Sunni Moslem Country the STATE determined both the State and Religious messages to be sent out. That is NOT true of the Shiites. The Shiites believe in a religious hierarchy INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE, which gives such religious leaders the ability to say what Islam is even if that is opposed by the Government. This this Shiite Religious leader is stating something he believes is Islamic Law and as such STRONGER to a Shiite then if the Government had said so.

More on the Umayyards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad

More on the Abbasids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid

More on Fatima:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_Zahra

More on Umar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab

More on Uthman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_ibn_Affan

More on Ali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib

More on Aisha:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

More on Khadijah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah

For more on Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. You can throw that theory out the window for modern Iran.
The theocrats were voted in as the only institution strong enough to fill the Sha's void.
Seems they voted themselves in to stay using the democratic process of ;
"One man,one voteone time

They have another election comming up next year. We will see democracy in action, no ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. While Iran is NOT a western Style Democracy, it is Democratic.
People do vote and they have a real choice as who to vote for (unlike the Former Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites, where you had the right to vote, but only for one party, the Communists). Now the people do NOT have the right to vote for radicals, but in reality neither do we (The two party system makes third party politics difficult, so even in the US, radicals have a problem getting votes even if they can get on the ballot).

Furthermore I was comparing the Sunni and Shiites view as to Church and State which, while tied in with Democracy, is a separate issue. The Shiites' view of Church and State is to keep them separate, unlike the rigid control of the Religion that is characteristic of Sunni rule. Egypt is a "Democracy" in that every one votes, but the one group that may be able to defeat the military leadership is watched carefully and forbidden even to do acts of Charity. I am referring to the Moslem Brotherhood, while itself radical did a better job of carry for the victims of various serious accidents in Egypt that the Government made it illegal for them to continue to do so (The Moslem Brotherhood did a better job of carrying foe the victims of the accident then the Government and the Government feared the subsequent support the Moslem Brotherhood gained do to its acts of assistance). Saddam was just as bad, Killing Sadr's Father for Saddam fears the elder Sadr's support among the Shiites. The Gulf States are Sunni run dictatorships that dare NOT permit they people to vote, for the people will vote in a Shiite republic like Iran in a heartbeat (for the simple reason the Shiites will at least try to give some of the money from the oil fields to the people instead of to the Ruling Families members, friends, Supporter and other people the ruling family have to pay off to stay in power).

My point was, when it came to Human rights the Shiites (even Iran) has a better track record than out Sunni Moslem allies. While Iran is NOT the US, it is better than Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni countries we are allied to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Timex Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Extremely Informative
thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
14. Lebanon is an exception to the rule of the middle eastern countries.
They were heavily influenced by western thought and customs under French rule but when the French left,the country fell under the Arab influences of the their neighboring country.
How many honor killings were there under French colonization?
The fact that he has to issue this fatwa at all is indication of the direction Lebanon. He can't stop what is on the increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. France has been involved in Lebanon since the Crusades.
Edited on Sun Aug-05-07 08:53 PM by happyslug
France has been on and off again involved in Lebanon since the Crusades. Everyone knows of the Crusades, but France was involved again in the 1600s to protect the Christians in right is now Lebanon. They have been other French expeditions but these have NOT been wars of Conquests, more war of support for people France had supported in the past (one of the reason for Napoleon's success in the Middle East as his army went from Egypt to Lebanon was do to a history of French Support for Lebanese Christians). I write this to show that France has had a long history in Lebanon, even during the Centuries Lebanon was ruled by the Ottoman Turks.

As to "Honor Killings" that is more a Sunni Moslem phenomena (Through it does occur among Shiites). Honor Killings predate Islam and reflects pre-islamic arab traditions than Islam.

As to the French preventing it, that was easy as long as over 50% of the population of Lebanon was Christian. The problem was since WWII a lot of Christan's have LEFT Lebanon (Going to the US or Europe) while the Druse, Shiite and Sunni Population have increased. It is now believe Lebanon is only about 20% Christian and the Christians have very little control outside of the areas they control. Thus in areas controlled by Druse, Shiites and Sunnis, Honor killings go on at roughly the pace they have always gone on. Notice I said pace, not number or per capital. The reason I use the term "Pace" is do to the change in the makeup of Lebanon. As the Shiites, Sunnis and Druse have increased in population they brought with them their tradition of "Honor Killings". These are more reported now and the Shiites seems to have adopted a policy against Honor Killings, but the Druse and Sunnis have NOT (at least officially, but Honor Killings seems to be most tied in with the Sunnis than any other group of Moslems).

More on the Druse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze

and the Alwites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawism

Both of the above are derived from Shiitism, but have adopted more neo-greek and christian theologies. They also do NOT permit people to convert ot their religion, so the religion is also family to most of the Druse and Alawites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-05-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. In 1920, the League of Nations gave France a mandate over Lebanon.
this site
History of Lebanon
(from 50,000 BC - 2005 AD in a glance)

http://www.lgic.org/en/history.php


is a good souce of recent Lebanese history;



Ottomans- French- Independence ( 1516 AD - 1943 AD)

http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1516.php

Switzerland of the East (1943 AD - 1969 AD)
http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1943.php

War in Lebanon ( 1970 AD - 1982 AD)
http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1970.php

Occupied Lebanon (1982 AD - 1990 AD)
http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1982.php

Syrian Occupation (1991 AD - 2000 AD)
http://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon1990.php

Contemporary Lebnaon (2001 AD - 2004 AD)
http://www.lgic.org/en/history_2001.php

The Cedar Revolution of 2005 AD- presenthttp://www.lgic.org/en/history_lebanon2005.php


excerpt from your post
....50% of the population of Lebanon was Christian.
The problem was since WWII a lot of Christan's have LEFT Lebanon (Going to the US or Europe) while the Druse, Shiite and Sunni Population have increased....


Lebanon can no longer be called Switzerland of the East with the seperation of church and state was the rule.
The future indicates Beriut may become a Mekka of the North if certain conservative thinkers lose out to the merging of mosque and state.

A wave of IED's have hit Lebanon in recent years. The trend is spreading and I wouldn't be suprised if the holy man in Lebanon comes out to say he was misquoted or he will face the rath of some groups laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-06-07 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. That's great news.
I hope more clerics add their voices to his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC