So on to comparing honor killings to drink driving and domestic assault. Just because one thing is more likely to happen, does not make the other less abhorrent.

I never said that honor killed is less abhorrent. I strongly condemn this ignorant action in the strongest of terms. Every single Muslim I know is of the same opinion as mine. That's every single one I know, so statistically, you can say 100% of the Muslims I know do not condone in any way, shape or form honor killing. What I've pointed out was the fact that it's more statistically possible for this girl to be killed by a drunk driver in the USA than being a victim of honor killing in Ohio, or even for the whole USA for that matter.

Can we find anyone in the community who would be willing to say that drink driving and domestic assault are acceptable? No, in fact we can point to advertising campaigns, educational programs and jail time as our societal rejection of these activities. The fact that these things still happen means that more must be done.

If you're trying to correlate that honor killing is acceptable in Islam or somehow that Muslims advocate for honor killing based on their religious duty, then I'm happy to say that this is definitely not the case. Similarly as your campaigns alluded to, more work has to be done in those respects, I submit the same when it comes to Muslims who ignorantly think (again, without any proof whatsoever) that this practice is acceptable within Islam.

So let's look at the Islamic community - what marketing, educational programs or sharia based sanctions can you point to that show the Islamic community's rejection of honor killings?

There are books on this matter, in my classes I teach students that this is not part of Islam, including suicide bombing and many other nonsensical practices of some so-called Muslims. In the Shariah, as I mentioned, there are no text relating to "honor killing" in the Qur'aan.

Our community, again the majority of Muslims who have a consciousness of God, knowing what's right from wrong, does not support or endorse this nonsensical behavior in any way, shape or form.

I hope I am clear.

It's commendable that you find the actions of those priests who engage in such despicable behavior towards innocent children shameful.

The debate within your community was and still is about what to do with the priests. Some of them are transferred to another church. I don't see how that's a cure to the problem, however, I think we're off topic a bit.

The context is the actions of Muslims. Somehow, when the action of some Muslims is abominable, every Muslim is to be blame and the religion of Islam is on trial, however, when a similar action is done by Christians or in your case Catholics, we see a dichotomy. Only those specifically associated with the action is brought to attention.

That's sheer hypocrisy in my humble opinion.

"This has nothing to do with Islam period." Then why did you post "First, this issue is debated within the Muslim community, it's not set in stone that this is the case"? If it is debated in the community, then the attitude exits as an Islamic position, whether you think it is the correct position or not.

I've consistently made the claim that what some Muslims do in retrospect to what the teachings of Islam stipulates are oftentimes at odds. That should be sufficient to answer your question as to "If it is debated in the community, then the attitude exits as an Islamic position, whether you think it is the correct position or not."

You're making the following logical error:

Sweeping Generalization (a.k.a. Accident)

1. Most men are "pigs."
2. John is a man.
Therefore, John is a "pig."

Why this is fallacious: Sweeping Generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. We have to remember not to interpret a generalization beyond what it actually tells us: only some or most of a class has a certain quality. Too often like the case above, a generalization is mistakenly applied to individuals as though it is universally true.

"Again, do you honestly think Muslims are to police each other as to who will commit a crime?" Actually, yes. If I am aware of criminal behaviour, it is my responsibility to turn that person in. And, God forbid, should I ever hear of a conspiracy to commit a crime, I'll be turning them in there as well.

Agreed, if we are awareof criminal behavior. Are you assuming all Muslims are to be aware of all Muslims' actions in order to preempt them from doing something that is outside the fold of Islam?

It's a duty for Muslims to prevent any wrong, that's an Islamic teaching. If Muslims do not do this, then they are in effect ignoring that teaching from Islam.

OK, sounds good.

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

- the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading

- the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

Now to ad hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Glad we got our definitions set. Now, to move on.

Spinster, the least you can do is get a decent comment system! My posts to your cheerleaders are being treated like your "scholarship" - parts getting deleted here and there :-)

response to mikeymike

Why not practice what you preach? You do your argument a disservice by calling me a bigot simply because I disagree with you.

I welcome your disagreements, however, base them on the facts, not the fictions of Spinster's bigotry and others like him. Facts speaks for themselves. If you're willing to deal with the facts, then lets do so. Don't look at one side of the issue and ignore the other, that's what we call intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, I don't recall seeing anywhere that this is a majority argument. I am quite willing to say that you are correct; I am not active in the Islamic community.

Correct, it's not a majority opinion or argument in favor of this nonsensical "honor killing". The main point is this has NOTHING to do with Islam period. What Spinster tries to do is bundle the be behavior of some Muslims and paint that broad brush to apply to all Muslims then goes further to make the assumption that this is inherent within the teachings of Islamic law. This guy doesn't even have a clue about Islamic law.

So let's say you are correct that there is a minority that thinks it is quite normal to kill your own family members because they leave Islam. What is an acceptable figure to you? 30%? 10%?

An acceptable figure would be 0. Even if we go with 10% of 1.2 billion Muslims (minimum), we'll have a figure of 120,000,000 which again is an absurd claim. I know some bible thumpers would wish for this figure killing, Muslims killing Muslims, but that's not the case.

Again, do you honestly think Muslims are to police each other as to who will commit a crime? Do Christians monitor those who blow up clinics? Does the whole of Christianity take responsibility for those Christians who do this? I would like you to answer that question.

My concern is that there is in fact a debate at all. My concern is that this attitude exists at all. My concern is for the girl in the middle of this very real danger. And my final concern is that I cannot tell the difference between those who would and those who would not kill. Can you?

I agree with you 100%. I don't see what this has to do with Islam. The fact still remains, people who are ignorant of their religious obligation does, as all people who are ignorant, ignorant things. You cannot blame the faith based on what stupid adherent do within it. If, it was sanctioned within the teachings of Islam, THEN I can see the uproar.

Like you, I cannot know who will or will not kill her. Would it be better if she was killed by a drunk driver?

Drunk Driving Statistics for the United States

Alcohol-related car crashes kill someone every 30 minutes and injure someone every two minutes.

It's more statistically possible for her to be killed by a drunk than an honor killing, will you challenge this fact?

I'm trying to think of other groups that have this debate - Catholics? No. Athiests? No. Freemasons. No. Organised criminals. Yes. Military dictatorships. Yes.

Lets see, the killing is done because of one's "honor". That's the basis of which these "honor killings" are done.

On average more than three women a day are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States. In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner. Who does this, what religion? It's not on the TV "News" channels 24/7 or in "Newspapers" with the headline "MUSLIM husbands..." so we can rule out that it was done by Muslims.

Want to comment?

Congratulations. On this issue, Islam has more in common with criminals and despots than organised religions.

What's an ad hominem again? hmmm.

I wouldn't waste another second trying to communicate with your evident lack of intellectual integrity. When you learn to debate, let me know.

go look up what an ad hominem.....

I've asked you already, prove where I am wrong and the reason is very simple, YOU CANNOT!

You send me to a link answering-islam.org, well try answering-christianity.com

I'm not here to convince you of anything, but I'll surely challenge your lies, that's certain!

I am not sure I understand your argument.

My argument is basically, Islam does not advocate for the killing of anyone leaving Islam. That's why I asked for Spinster to find me a single verse in the Qur'aan that says to do this. He'll not find one, so he'll go to hadith (normally described as the traditions of Prophet Muhammad - may it be words, actions, etc.). Now, hadith itself are classified into various categories, such as "authentic - sahih" (but that is problematic as well) "hasan - good", "daef - weak" "munkar - fabricated" etc.

How then is Spinster giving a hadith that NOT ONLY contradict the Qur'aan (by default it's to be discredited if there were honest scholars who don't have agendas much like Spinster), but is by its definition questionable in its attribution to the Prophet Muhammad? I think that's very dishonest and misleading.

But, you admit, do you not, that there is a debate within the Muslim Community about the merits and legitimacy of killing apostates?

I'll be the first to say that many Muslims are ignorant of Islam. Many of them I see practice a jahili concept that is foreign to the teachings of Islam. I have my theories as to why this is happening mostly in the middle east and in areas where there is less emphasis on education (especially among Muslim women), but that is mere speculation.

Again, I am not saying Muslims do not do this practice of "honor killing" a problematic word at best in my opinion. What's honorable in killing your family or any one for that matter? In cases where killing is necessary as in all civilized parts of the world, then I can see the reason, but in this case, I am totally repulsed that anyone would kill someone for leaving a faith. That's just ridiculous.

What I'm stating clearly that this practice is not from an Islamic perspective, it's from a jahili cultural practice mainly found in parts of the middle east. Only 20% of the Muslim population is from the middle east and I'm not stating that all people in the middle east are ignorant of Islam.

If Spinster wants to see change in the Muslims, what he's doing is alienating the Muslims WHO CAN make a difference, not encouraging the extremists positions. This guy's agenda is very questionable at best. He talks from both sides of his mouth.

What commentators or classical scholars, etc. etc. say is their opinion, not law! I've read many of their work and I disagree with some of their OPINIONS (get that, opinions?)

You, for the life of honesty and intellectual integrity, cannot seem to recognize (or deliberately rejecting it for your agenda driven income) facts from fiction, laws from opinions, etc.

The very fact that Muslims are not en masse killing apostates should tell the average intelligent person here that this is NOT an Islamic law. It has and probably will continue as a JAHILI practice that is foreign to the teachings of Islam. Study some history for God's sake. You're no better than the OBLs and his goons, same foolishness different source!

Ah, now that I've got your attention Spinster!

Your rightfully (one of your half truths) say You claim that the Qur'an doesn't specifically command the execution of apostates, as if the Qur'an is the only source for judicial rulings in Islamic law.

So does this mean now that Islamic law should refer to ahadeeth instead of the Qur'aan? You are being quite deceptive to your dummies (not dhimmis) again, with our half lies which you cunning mix with your half truths! Nice try though!

Now, since you're an 'expert' on Islam (I know, the joke of the century) where in Islamic law that you can show me that a hadith superceded the Qur'aan? Show me one islamic law that is passed and honored as an Islamic law that shows a hadith being ruled in favor above the Qur'aan. I've already pointed out that the Qur'aan shows many verses that contradicts this hadith! Of course, aside from your agenda driven disembogues, you cannot disprove what I'm saying all along.

I've yet to see you take on my challenge and I've dealt with more qualified (doesn't say much though in your case) hate mongers repeating this hadith. The mere fact you're using this hadith shows how uneducated you are in the field of Islamic studies.

I'm still calling you out on this: Fourth, Spinster does not obviously know of the historical nature of this hadith. I challenge him to show me the historical nature of THIS hadith he quoted in Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57.

And please don't spurt more nonsense as if to dismiss my challenge. That'll work with your audience, not me! Answer my question and stop avoiding and deflecting!