Honor Killings vs. Disfellowshipping

by writetoknow 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • writetoknow
    writetoknow

    Recently two teenage girls in Texas where kill by their father it has been reported as a honor killing. Do you think disfellowshipping can be elevated to the level of honor killings?

    Special Focus: Islam

    Honor Killings, Illicit Sex, and Islamic Law

    Intimate violence against women is a worldwide crisis. From “crimes of passion” to “dowry deaths,” not to mention domestic violence, many types of aggression against women occur at the hands of family members. The so-called “honor killing” of women and girls in some Muslim nations is one horrifying manifestation of this global phenomenon.

    These killings, which occur with shocking regularity in certain parts of the Middle East and South Asia, target women whose actions – actual or suspected – violate the honor of their family, an honor which is thought to depend on the sexual purity of its female members. Anything from speaking with an unrelated man, to rumored pre-marital loss of virginity, to an extra-marital affair can be cause for an attack, often carried out by a father or brother. In some especially tragic instances, even women and girls who have been raped are slain to remove the stain from the family honor. As with other forms of intimate violence against women, perpetrators are seldom punished.

    Some have viewed honor killings as a logical extension of traditional Islamic gender practices, the natural consequence of system that enforces sex-segregation through veiling and female seclusion and harshly punishes violations of these boundaries. Others have argued that honor killings are the antithesis of Islamic morality. This latter view is essentially correct from the perspective of Qur’an, prophetic traditions (hadith), and Islamic legal thought, as a careful analysis of the relevant texts shows. (CLICK HERE TO READ “The Treatment of Honor Killings in Traditional Texts.”) However, certain elements of traditional sexual ethics do contribute to the climate of intense scrutiny of female conduct that finds one extreme expression in honor crimes.

    In Qur’an, prophetic tradition, and law, one finds a very strong presumption of women’s chastity along with numerous safeguards to prevent any imputation of unchastity. Within such a context, honor killings are utterly criminal. Numerous prophetic traditions report that when asked about a husband finding his wife with another man, the Prophet agreed that the husband must procure three additional witnesses to her act before the public authority can judge her offense; otherwise he would be liable to lashing for publicly accusing her or to being killed if he killed. If a woman discovered in flagrante cannot be even publicly accused unless there are four witnesses to her act, then mere suspicion can never justify slaying a woman. Questioned by another man who claimed that his honor (ghira) would require him to immediately slay his wife’s lover in such a case, the Prophet reportedly declared that God’s honor was greater than any human’s. (See Hadith page.) The implication is that God’s revealed procedures for dealing with illicit sex must take precedence over human ego and emotion. This does not mean, of course, that human honor is unimportant. The stress placed on safeguarding women’s reputations and punishing slander demonstrates an awareness that such accusations can have devastating consequences for those accused.

    From the perspective of Qur’an, prophetic traditions, and law, sex outside of a legally binding tie is considered zina, and is punishable for both women and men. Though there is a double standard in that men are, under certain circumstances, permitted to have several lawful sexual partners while women must always remain monogamous, when it comes to punishment for illicit intercourse men and women are treated exactly alike. In this sense, the traditional framework for dealing with illicit sexual behavior is balanced – unlike in the case of honor killings for actual or suspected sexual misconduct, in which only women are targets.

    Still, while honor killings find no sanction whatsoever in Qur’an, prophetic traditions, or law, these sources cannot be absolved of all responsibility for placing a greater share of the burden of maintaining societal chastity on women. Though the Qur’an commands both men (24.30) and women (24.31) to “cast down their gazes” and to “protect their chastity,” it specifically regulates only women’s dress (Q. 24.31; 33.59). Yet it is a long stretch from these commands, which have the declared intention of protecting women from harassment (Q. 33.59), to the legal rules that allow men, especially husbands, to impose seclusion on women, forbid them from leaving the home, and limit their access even to other relatives. These rules for seclusion were never strictly observed by more than an elite minority, and are not generally enforced today. But the basic perspective they embody – that the separation of men and women is to be enforced by keeping women apart from men, and that women who violate these boundaries are suspect – remains influential.

    Some have suggested that the best means of combating honor killings is to insist on a strict application of traditional law, under which only the public authority is empowered to punish illicit sexual intercourse, and then only with incontrovertible proof of wrongdoing. The evidentiary requirements for conviction in cases of zina (four eyewitnesses to the actual act of penetration or confession by the offenders) ensure that punishment will virtually never be carried out. By claiming the Islamic “high ground” such a move could be influential in shaping Muslim ideas about honor and punishment. The danger to this approach, though, is that by enshrining traditional texts as literally applicable to the contemporary world, one leaves unchallenged those elements of traditional sexual ethics that create a climate of hyper-attention to women’s bodies and behavior. So-called honor killings are indeed one extreme outgrowth of this climate. A Muslim feminist sexual ethics must help create the conditions for the Qur’anic and traditional values of modesty and chastity to be lived by Muslim women and men in ways that are faithfully chosen and equitably maintained.

    Kecia Ali

  • Must obey!
    Must obey!

    It is a very harsh comparison but scarily enough there is a Watchtower quote floating around where the Watchtower Mullahs imply that if it weren't for modern laws forbidding it, they would have no compunction about stoning an unrepentant sinner to death! There is also a quote from that infamous 1954 Court case in Scotland where senior WBTS officials admit that disfellowshipping constitutes a "spiritual death".

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Do you think disfellowshipping can be elevated to the level of honor killings?

    Who knows what "can" happen. But in no way is the degree or nature of the thing the same. The latter is largely a cultural thing.

    Burn

  • writetoknow
    writetoknow

    Is disfellowshipping as cruel in the big picture for some families?

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Disfellowshipping is NOT killing. All organizations have the right to kick people out.

    Corporations do it all the time - it's called firing and it isn't always after a fair hearing either.

    As to the so-called Watchtower that says JW's would kill people that do bad things... they never said that.

    However, I have always been troubled by the Murder of Ananias and Saphira. I know the scriptures say Holy Spirit killed them but I don't believe that. It sounds like an ancient Urban Legend.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Proplog2 -- You are comparing apples and oranges. Corporations don't exercise control over who can talk to you. They don't tell their employees to shun former employees or risk termination, do they? And they certainly don't threaten people with everlasting death, and break up families as disfellowshipping frequently does.

    And as far as how far the WTS would go, do check your CD-Rom. Here is a direct quote from the 11/15/1952 issue, Questions From Readers:

    "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine."

    "Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship."
    An impartial reading of the above quote shows that they only don't kill apostates because they are restrained by laws of the land and of Jesus. But it doesn't seem like a stretch to read the hatefulness displayed even in mentioning extermination and killing!
  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Gopher:

    Are you saying that if a group of people really take their religion seriously they shouldn't expect loyalty?

    I've seen that quote before. It explicitly invokes the law of Christ as a reason why they wouldn't physically harm anyone. Admittedly, it is worded in a constrained legalistic manner consistent with the organizations bad-ass pharisee attitude. But, it is not advocating Christians kill apostates.

    June 15 1997 Quest From Readers about Death Penalty:

    "But when it comes to the controversial question of whether any government of this world should exercise its right to execute murderers, genuine Christians remain carefully neutral. Unlike the clergy of Christendom, they keep out of any debate on this subject."

  • writetoknow
    writetoknow

    What degree of seriousness are we talking about here? Many religion on this earth function fine without disfellowshipping ever person that does not agree with ever changing interpretations of doctrine.

    If perfect loyality is such a big factor for JW"s what of the many that were disfellowship for doctrine that have now been changed or dates that didn't come true? Moreover, where is the loyality to correct the wrong?

    Loyality is not "lock-step" it is first to God not man and when a wrong is committed then God's righteousness requires righting the wrong.

    Disfellowshipping was not to get read of the enemy for Christian it was to correct a wrong and restore the person - a Christian can never hate the person. Hate for Christain is murder that is why they are to pray for their enemies.

    And that is why dissfellowshipping is done behind close doors. It is used by a legal corporation to conform people to it laws and to protect itself from lawsuits.

  • Gopher
    Gopher
    Gopher:

    Are you saying that if a group of people really take their religion seriously they shouldn't expect loyalty?

    I've seen that quote before. It explicitly invokes the law of Christ as a reason why they wouldn't physically harm anyone. Admittedly, it is worded in a constrained legalistic manner consistent with the organizations bad-ass pharisee attitude. But, it is not advocating Christians kill apostates.

    Of course the Watchtower cannot come out and say "kill apostates". But in line with the title of this thread "Honor Killings vs. Disfellowshipping", consider that in a number of Muslim sub-cultures, a family member will be murdered by other family members (or by someone appointed by the family) to undo the loss of family status because of the actions or status of the victim. I'm sure you'll admit this is very extreme.

    While the JW's cannot go to that extreme, I view the breakup of families and enforced shunning as having the same hateful and vengeful spirit as honor killings, without the actual act of murder. It's more like they try to impose a slow death on the victim of disfellowshipping.

    There is nothing loving, Christ-like or scriptural about disfellowshipping as it is carried out by Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea of avoiding a wrongdoer (to some extent) is in the New Testament, but not to the extremes and not for the reasons invoked by the Watchtower Society.

    The WTS uses selected segments of the Bible, interpreted as they wish, to cruelly drive apart family members. That's overboard.

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24
    Disfellowshipping is NOT killing. All organizations have the right to kick people out.
    Corporations do it all the time - it's called firing and it isn't always after a fair hearing either.
    As to the so-called Watchtower that says JW's would kill people that do bad things... they never said that.

    Yeah - df'ing is killing. It kills the family unit - it kills the relationship between mothers and children, grandparents, siblings. It kills the relationship sometimes between employers and employee's and yes - it most certainly kills by pushing those disfellowshipped to suicide.

    Corporations do it all the time - you are absolutely right, but, last time I checked there weren't kids signing lifetime contracts to a corporation. The WTS demands a lifetime committment to their organization in the form of baptism - but a teenager has no idea what that means, therefore, the results of that action have the effect of killing them (see disfellowshipping) should they do something that the WTS doesn't approve of. Let's also keep in mind that a person has a legal right to take his employer to court should the contract change through his tenure - the Society changes the rules all the time and the person in it has no recourse since df'ing is the punishment for objection.

    The WTS uses fear as control. Blind obedience is a must. So they don't have to say a word - they only have to use the same mind control techniques that they've been using forever to punish it's own members if they go against the grain. The number of witnesses who would actually prefer that their own flesh and blood die instead of being disfellowshipped says it all - especially since those witnesses cast out their own family members regardless of the mental, emotional or physical health of that person. If they perish - oh well. They don't have to say it - a wink and a nod will keep the masses in line. sammieswife.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit