Talk:Honor killing/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Honour vs. Honor 2 Requested move 2.1 Survey 2.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 2.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 2.2 Discussion 2.3 POV Driven Editing 3 Locations 4 No Turkish version 5 Mexican Honor Killings 6 Explanation needed 7 Muslim Countries Re-Write 8 Removed weasel words and uncited dismisal from "Honor Killings in the Bible" section 9 Removed entire article as racist in content 10 Odd Comments 11 State laws? 12 Princess Misha'al 13 British/American English 14 In Muslim Countries 15 Citation Irrelevent

Honour vs. Honor

At the risk of sounding petty in light of the seriousness of this topic, I'm wondering if this page should be renamed to "Honor Killing" since all references within the article are spelled with this US spelling. It seems rather odd to have the title with the British spelling, then the first word in the article is that of the US spelling (which then continues throughout). Icemuon 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Icemuon. I noticed it as soon as I saw the article, and came to this talk page to see if anyone else had said anything about it. I think it would make sense for the spelling (either British or American) to be consistent throughout the article.--Tabun1015 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It looks and is ridiculous. Who is out there, so tribal-minded as to need to ensure an article title is in the spelling preference of their nation? One way or the other, but could someone create some consistency in the article? Why isn't there one of those guideline pages on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.180.9 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I also agree. There is no reason to use honour instead of honor when the article clearly uses the american spelling of the word throughout. Mace 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move the page myself but was unsuccessful, so I added it to the list of page move requests [1]--Tabun1015 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral at this point. Being American, I naturally favor honor. I have pause though because the cultures that seem suspectible to "honor killings" tend use British English and it would seem that WP:UE would favor keeping the title as is and charging the spelling within the article. 205.157.110.11 22:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In regards to keeping the title and changing the rest of the article; I tried to move the article to the new spelling myself, but it said that there was already an article with that name (which redirected to the British spelling). This seems to indicated that the article was started using American spelling for the title, and later was changed to the British spelling. That, along with the fact that the entire rest of the article uses the American spelling, gives more support to changing it to the American spelling.--Tabun1015 00:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Both U.S. and U.K. spelling are valid. Any wikipedia is free to use either spelling. The difference should not be corrected for it sake. Otherwise, it would be de facto rule to impose U.S. spelling on wikipedia. Vapour (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

POV Driven Editing

To Lao Wai:

1. Wiping out most of the cited history section, which especially hints out to honor killings within various pre-Islamic societies

2. Assuming that the practice is "over-whelmingly associated with certain Muslim cultures and the peoples influenced by those cultures," while the sentence's source does not specifically say so

3. Not making clear that the references within Islamic texts relating to (female) infanticide "condemn" the act

4. And stating that "honor killings cannot be punished according to many interpretations of Islamic law," without placing the word "always" between cannot and be etc...

Is highly pov driven, filled with assumptions instead of "facts" and consists of a certain amount of original research. Because of the former factors, I will once again revert most of the article to its prior form.

If you disagree with me, then you are welcomed to voice out your beliefs.

Silver crescent 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wiped most of the history section because they do not talk about honor killings, but inflagrente murders. If you can explain the similarity of those two to me I am happy for them to be included. What husbands did in Assyria has nothing to do with what Muslims do today. It does not matter much what the source explicitly says. That is what the report does in fact find even if they do not spell it out. I fail to see the objection - are you claiming that claim is not true? I am happy to make it clear that infanticide is condemned. The word "always" is grammatically incorrect and irrelevant. I fail to see any POV although I am happy to argue about OR. I fail to see any reason not to revert again. Lao Wai 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

1. Everything within the "Based on suspicion" section is an example of an honor killing, because unlike a crime of passion it is planned and based on suspicion as opposed to proof. What family members and/or husbands did in pre-Islamic societies may very well have something to do with what individual Muslims and non-Muslims do today. Furthermore, the "History" section as well as this article in general, is supposed to be about honor killings in general and not those specifically done by some Muslims.

2. Off course it matters what the source says. If the source is not specific, then the wording relating to it within the article should be used carefully.

3. The word always is relevant, because a family member may very well consider allowing a relative to undergo the death penalty for committing an honor killing, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

4. It should also be pointed out, that although it could be argued that locations such as Indonesia and West Africa are (somewhat) Sufi influenced, Islam has been within (parts) those areas for hundreds of years, thus they are in no way "newly converted".

5. The "Based on proof" section is only there to point out to pre-Islamic penalties relating to stoning to death for committing adultery. If the statement about the Hadith's view of stoning to death is mentioned within the article, then the prior examples should be written about as well. Whether or not the Ancient Valley of Mexico's, traditional Judaism's and traditional Islam's interpretive examples of adultery and stoning should be mentioned within the article, can always be discussed.

Again, I am going to make certain reverts because at the moment, this article looks terribly biased, especially in regards to the history section, the belief that individual Muslims and "their cultures" are the prime supporters of honor killings, as well as Islamic law's "true" stance on the allowance or disallowance of the practice in general.

Silver crescent 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Except what did I delete that was based on suspicion? A crime of passion requires the husband to see his wife committing adultery and it is a form of temporary insanity. Where is the suspicion? Adultery requires proof of adultery in a court of law. Courts in Assyria and Peru did not work on suspicion as far as I can see (or guess). I would even argue that what determines an honor killing is the murder of a woman by her natal family. That is different from a crime of passion where it is the husband. I agree there seems to be a continuum with the killing of baby girls in pre-Islamic times (although notice that is an Arab custom and non-Arabs commit honor killings). I am happy to say that Islamic law condemns this. If you can find historical examples of honor killings carried out by non-Muslims I am all for them being included.

2. But all I am doing is summarizing the UN Report. Would you be happier if I replaced it with a list of the top ten countries for honor killings or other associated forms of violence against women? It would just say what I said it says. I do not see that reducing the report down to a sentence or two is OR.

3. OK. I can see that. I thought it was covered by the "some schools" argument, but although I think the English is clumsy I am happy with it. Of course I have never heard of a case where it has happened, but it is theoretically possible.

4. Well influenced by pre-Islamic religions at any rate, and I think that even a few hundred years is comparatively new. A lot of Meccan-norms are not enforced in Indonesia. Hijab is rare. They are becoming more Orthodox and I would guess honor killings will become more common. But that would be OR. Compared to the places where they are relatively common - the Arab world, Persia, Pakistan, Turkey - Indonesia and West Africa are newly converted.

5. But that belongs in an article on zina, not an article on honor killings. Adultery is a separate issue. Adultery is still illegal in parts of the US but they do not do honor killings. I am not sure if the stoning bit belongs, but if the argument is that Islamic law imposes death for adultery and so creates an expectation that adulterers must die, and so it feeds directly into honor killings then stoning is relevant. But the punishment for adultery elsewhere, where honor killings are unheard of, is still not relevant as far as I can see. Unless you are arguing that death for adultery does not necessarily cause honor killings?

6. I think it needs to be clear that Islamic law may allow a loop hole, but does not approve. However it is undeniable that Muslims and Muslim culture are prime supporters of honor killings. Muslims pass those laws letting killers off and Muslims enforce them, or not. They, or at least some, treat the killers like heros. It is not Quakers sneaky out at night at performing them. Islam may object, but many Muslim cultures clearly do not. Lao Wai 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Locations

Honor killing happens all over the world. It also happens in various countries in Europe and the list can go on and on. However, it is wrong to list all these countries in which honor killings are done only by immigrant populations. This is true for the United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Israel (in the sense that only Arabs and Druze commit honor murder)etc. etc. If people want to list the entire countries of the world where Muslims live, that's a possibility, but I don't think that's the point of this article. Misheu 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Honor killings are utterly insignificant outside Muslim communities and some kafir communities that have been ruled by Muslims for a long time. Sikhs for instance. I think the countries ought to go though. Lao Wai 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you undid my revision? There is a major difference between honor killings in Arab countries, where it is endemic, and honor killings in Western countries, where it is perpetrated within the immigrant communities and is seen as something foreign and abhorrent that should be repelled. Misheu 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which revision you mean but as I have been consistent in pointing out this is a problem of Muslim communities and a few other former Dhimmi ones, I don't think it is fair to criticise me for saying otherwise. You don't think that the article is emphatic enough that this is a problem of Middle Eastern immigrants? Even I think that. If you would like to be even more emphatic, I would be happy, but isn't the article clear enough? Lao Wai 11:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize - I did not mean to criticize you. I had separated the western countries (where honor killing takes place among the immigrant Muslim/Arab communities) and the Arab lands (where honor killing is a more common occurrence). you had changed that revision back. I agree with what you wrote above, that the list of countries might as well be removed. However, if it is not removed, it is very confusing to put everybody together in "one bag". Misheu 13:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Honor killings within immigrant communities can make a very big impact on the western countries' politics. Consider taking this into account--including how some students are requested to find information on this--before you wipe out information.Blanche Poubelle 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No Turkish version

kinda interesting that it doesn't have a Turkish version of this article around... Towsonu2003 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Honor Killings

There was a story on the news about honor killings in Mexico and the US that showed that some Mexicans kill their kids if they are born having lighter skin,hair and eyes.I havent found anything on the net about it but if someone wants to look into it or have a source they may add it if they like. M.P. 02 May 2007

Explanation needed

This article needs an explanation as to why it is only women who are punished and not the men who they "commit the crime" with. If for example a woman commits adultery with a man, then that man is either also commiting adultery (is married to someone else) or is fornicating (is single). Why isn't he also punished then?--Thedaydreamer 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knows for sure? That would be the domain of OR. There is an undoubted double standard, but of course there is also the pecularities of Islamic law - rape needs four adult male eyewitnesses which means the rapist can never be punished. Murder is a civil offense, a tort in fact. It is up to the family of the victim to seek damages. If you kill a male from another family, his family will seek revenge. If you kill your own daughter, you will not. It is safer (and cheaper given the value of a son) to kill the girl. So they do. If you can find anyone who points that obvious fact out it would be worth including. Lao Wai 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a political-economic sociological explanation, but BananaFiend deleted it. He seems to prefer psychological explanation, and says that explanations are NPOV. That is why this article does not have any explanation.Blanche Poubelle 16:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Countries Re-Write

I went ahead and added a bunch of information to the Muslim Countries section. I re-arranged alot of the text there, and added a bunch of refrences to Muslim texts where applicable. I also accidently deleted the Cleanup tag, but since Im a complete wikipedia noob I don't know how to restore it. This is also my first major edit. Phfor 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed weasel words and uncited dismisal from "Honor Killings in the Bible" section

While I'm not entirely sure these things from Leviticus fall under "Honor Killings", an editor claimed that the Bible does not say those things at all, and that the Leviticus 20:10-16 citation was false - but unless all the 8 of the English translations in my 9-translation side-by-side Bible are intentionally mistranslating the original Hebrew, that quote is accurate. I removed the weasal words and the "you should indepedantly review this" sentence.

Removed entire article as racist in content

Honour killing is feature of tribal societies - it has little or nothing to do with religon. Arab Christians are as likely to commit honour killings as Arab Muslims as are Hindu and Sikh South Asians - in the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia 'honour killings' are rare in the extreme.

I will continue to delete any reference to Honour Killing as an exclusively Muslim problem - that is a complete distortion of available evidence.

That's fine. But your words don't match your deeds. You deleted the entire article in a series of edits, ending with this revision. In fact, you even deleted the parts of the article that read "Honour killings have been continually mistaken to be a practice encouraged by Islam" and "Honor killing is forbidden in Islam." If you believe the whole article needs to be deleted, please follow the appropriate Wikipedia procedures. Simply blanking the page is nothing more than vandalism. Tlesher 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is extremely anti-Muslim and needs to be toned down. The Muslim examples should be removed. Corvus cornix 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at earlier versions of the article you can see that USer:BroyGoy added "Muslim" to the first sentence here and I've warned him about it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Odd Comments

Women enabled to assert their own preferences and goals are felt as an unbearable disruption of men's planned economic and political networks, where women are normatively presumed to be manipulable tools of that networking.

and

It is not that such women do not generate value or are not valuable members of the family; but rather the key to honor killing is that from the authoritarian, patriarchal vantage point, "deviant" women appear as intolerable costs; their inherent worth and contributions are discounted.

As there are varying reasons/methods and cultures involved, while these two statements are applied to honor killings as a whole, they seem POV to me. Many men (by definition, most) are not at the top of some form of hierarchy, and will kill a woman from a sense of shame without wondering about their socio-economic "value". While these feelings are a by-product of a patriarchal society that views women as objects, it is unlikely that ALL honour killings are considered according to some sort of female utility measurement. It seems that some killings are indeed based on cold calculations of worth (esp. where dowry arrangements are involved), but these two statements seem a little broad.

oops, forgot to sign BananaFiend 11:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BananaFiend, In the interests of diversity that you mentioned, why did you not add a psychological interpretation of honor killing, rather than just deleting the sociological/political economic explanation? I don't imagine social science explanations are by definition NPOV in Wikipedia. Blanche Poubelle 16:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

State laws?

You might want to check into the laws in U.S. states as well. I believe quite a few held that killing spouses and lovers caught in flagrante delicto was justifiable homicide. Some still might. I believe the state I live in only changed that law within the last couple of decades.Amity150 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Princess Misha'al

The article states: "The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is an example of a judicial honor killing, in which the execution did not follow any Islamic religious court proceeding, but was ordered directly by her grandfather, who was never brought to book for this murder."

I did some background checking last night and could not find any credible souce for this statement. Apparently there was a trial and Misha'al was executed for self-confessed adultery, not as an honor killing. The tone of this article should be neutral, and in part that means not dismissing the judicial processes of other countries and cultures simply because they do not follow the Western model. So I have changed the article on Misha'al and will change this article pending sources being provided. Amity150 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

British/American English

this topic seems to have a mix of both, the title is in US Eng, while the UK Eng spelling is used later on, before editing it, to make it consistant, I would like cofirm if it should be UK or US Eng.Sennen goroshi 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the article is at "honor" and not "honour" so I would suspect that it started in US English, but I really don't care either way. Other than that just remember to leave the quotes in the original spelling. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should be in BrE, not AmE. Honour killings are not a phenomenon known in the United States but - as the article states - exist in the UK. As such, the style of the article should correlate to the areas in which the phenomenon exists, i.e. British English. Tescoid (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Honour killings are not a phenomenon known in the United States

you may want to reconsider that thought. try here: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/14959724/detail.html.] there have been more too... you just have too look.67.10.159.63 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A move is suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tescoid (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

see the opening paragraphs of WP:MOS. both styles are acceptable, and as this topic is of international significance (i.e. it isn't restricted to Britain), i'm thinking we should probably stick to the present format. it's not much of a big deal though, you can push for the changes if you deem them appropriate. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The WP:MOS page also states that an article on a topic that has ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. Honour killings are becoming more popular in the UK, which has a much larger muslim population than the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tescoid (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This topic has already been adressed here and here, and it was decided to move it to the American spelling. Although honor killings may be more common in the UK, I don't think it is an important feature of British society. WP:MOS refers to events that have a close tie to either British or American society. For example, the article on the American Civil War should be in AmE, while the article referring to the British monarchy should be in BrE. In any case, since the topic has already been discussed and decided, I think it should be left as it is unless more convincing reasons are given for the need for a move.--Tabun1015 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In Muslim Countries

This was removed from the before mentioned section for "patently false OR material." Aside from strictly quoting Islamic texts, and providing relevant examples from said text, what else is there? Every sentence is sourced with a specific example. How is this original research? Is citing an Islamic text, as done here, OR? I really hope it isn't.

I reverted the section.

If Muslim texts are to be literally translated, the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

“

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. [5]

”

Adultery is one of three justifications for killing a person, according to the Qur'an, [3] and there is specific mention of honor killings being encouraged and carried out by Muhammad in Muslim texts. For example, A married man confesses that he has adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones, he tries to escape but is dragged back. [4]. A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, and she is stoned after giving birth. [5]. A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order. [6]

Phfor 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Original research, which prohibits the insertion of our own interpretations of primary sources (or any other sources for that matter). to cite a Qur'anic verse (a primary text) for the tendentious evaluation that "the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law" is a prime example of original research. similarly, the subsequent passages cite only primary sources; it is only the editor's own interpretation that such passages are relevant to the topic of extra-legal 'honor killings'. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So, if I add sources such as This [7], This [8], or This [9] The context would be valid? Or do I need more refs? Phfor 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

you require reliable sources making precisely the factual (not opinionated, see WP:NPOV) assertions you believe have not been mentioned. the above sources don't meet the high standards expected in terms of reliability (the last may be an exception in cases of Islamic legal rulings), but they cannot be (mis)used to forward points they don't make (see WP:V), or to forward unsupported fringe theories like "the act of honor killing can be seen as almost encouraged under Islamic law". it would be better if you didn't reinsert this material again until it meets our content standards. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section, is this more NPOV? I think it better represents both sides.

Citation Irrelevent

Under "In Muslim majority countries" it says:

There are some scholars who claim the act of honor killing is encouraged in Islam

and there are two sources. I looked up the sources and both are irrelevent. The scholar here says that adultry is forbidden and punishable by death, but he does not say that honor killing is permitted.

If you ask any scholar he will tell that it's not, in order to kill her (and him) you need to 1) make sure she is married BEFORE she committed adultery, single women do not get the death sentence; 2) get 4 separate eye witnesses (unlike the 2 required for other crimes such as murder, the aim is to make it twice as difficult to prove); 3) the judge issues the sentence; 4) it may NOT be carried out by a family member, rather, by a neutral party appointed by the government (ex. the executioner)

It's difficult to find sources in English for this but here is one: http://www.crescentlife.com/thisthat/feminist%20muslims/honor_killings.htm

Now, if you don't think my source is valid, that's fine with me; but your sources must explicitly state that "honor killing is permitted" not "the execution of adulteres is enforced"; there is a great difference. As different as saying "it's OK to lock your neighbor up for 20 years in your basement if he stole your lawn mower" and saying "the imprisonment of thieves is enforced".

If you search the web you will also find that scholars say that murder is punishable by execution, theft by cutting off the hand…etc. But saying that is stating the law not saying that whoever wants can carry out the sentence can go ahead and do it! Don’t put words in people’s mouths.

I didn’t want to remove the sources lest someone would say that I removed sources, but I do expect them to be removed or replaced with more relevant and less deceiving ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maha Odeh (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let me see if I understand. You remove a statement, backed up with two sources, because you have a single source that partially contradicts the other ones? The statement even began with

There are some scholars who claim the act of honor killing is encouraged in Islam^{[citation needed]}, ^{[6] [7]} honor killings are regurally carried out in the Muslim world...

Some being the key word. Why not just edit it slightly, so it says...

There are some scholars who claim the act of honor killing is encouraged in Islam^{[citation needed]}, ^{[8] [9]}. However, other scholars disagree. [10] ...

Also, why did you feel the need to remove the following paragraph?

Adultery is one of three justifications for killing a person, according to the Qur'an, [11] and there is specific mention of honor killings being encouraged and carried out by Muhammad in Muslim texts. For example, A married man confesses that he has adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones, he tries to escape but is dragged back. [12]. A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, and she is stoned after giving birth. [13]. A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order. [14]

Every statement is sourced and referenced with Islamic texts. What was your reasoning for deletion?

I reverted the section, added your "input."

Also, sign your edits with 4 Tilde

Phfor 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Phfor, i have requested this of you several times now: please don't manipulate sources with your own interpretations. you are not using reliable sources - you are either using unreliable sources, or other sources which you have simply misrepresented. your changes amount to original research, and until you seriously consider bringing your edits in conformity with this core policy and reading it thoroughly, there is little that can be done except to revert these changes- which do not belong on an encyclopedia. the islamonline.net says nothing of supporting honor killings, that's just your own skew of it. similarly, the other sources added have either been distorted or are simply unreliable. this is exemplified by your interpretive use of hadith to allege honor killings. you are editing in a tendentious manner here- please be aware that we have a mandatory neutrality policy, so this isn't really the place to be pushing your own views and interpretations of sources. ITAQALLAH 12:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So lets see, we have a source from Islamonline.net already, [15] a source you seem to approve of, ( which also contains "It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication..." ) Another source by Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta (a man getting his second doctorate in International Relations and Terrorism") which both seem to assert that Honor Killings occur in the Muslim world. These sources are good, they are both "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." There are also the news articles, about honor killings in the muslim world, and the fact that that Muhammad himself carries out a death penalty for adultery.

Speaking of that, why was the section about Muhammad executing several adulterers removed? [16] [17] [18]Stright from Muslim texts. When the text is a story, containing clear accounts ( such as; "My son was a servant in the house of this person and he committed adultery with his wife. I was informed that my son deserved stoning to death (as punishment for this offence [sic]). I gave one hundred goats and a slave girl as ransom for this. I asked the scholars (if this could serve as an expiation for this offence [sic]). They informed me that my son deserved one hundred lathes and exile for one year. and this woman deserved stoning (as she was married). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah. The slave-girl and the goats should be given back, and your son is to be punished with one hundred lashes and exile for one year. And, O Unais (b. Zuhaq al-Aslami), go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her. Book 017, Number 4209: [19]) One can't claim false interpretation, it's in black and white. If you have another translation of these Muslim texts that claims that adultery is not a sin punishable by death/stoning, go ahead and add it to the article. The citations are relevant, Muhammad orders adulterers stoned, and honor killings are taking place in the Muslim world, which is all this section is about, anyway. [20] [21]

Phfor 15:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You seem to rush to delete my un-sourced content, but the statement "Other Muslim scholars say that honor killings are a cultural practice which is neither exclusive to, nor universal within, the Islamic world ^{[citation needed]}," and the entire paragraph, is improperly sourced (an article about surfdom and a dead news link). It has been up there since I started editing this section. Why don't you also delete this completely un-sourced statement, or try to find a source to support this argument?

Ive deleted that statement, and the "The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al" section until any kind of source can be found.

Phfor 15:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

until you are wiling to seriously consider reading WP:OR ("Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses" - "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts" - "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately."), there is little we can discuss. you are adding your own interpretation to sources, and then denying that you have done so.

re: islamonline.net - the link discusses the punishment for adultery given by the legal authority. an "honor killing" is an extra-judicial punishment, not one meted out by the legal authority. the word "honor killing" appears not a single time on that page. it's quite clear the website is against honor killing,[22] and it shows how you have been inappropriately using sources.

re: Bhaskar Dasgupta. if you read his article, you will see that he says he is not an Islamic scholar, and he says that Islam does not sanction honor killings. he indicates it is more of a culture-oriented practice. in spite of that, you cite him to verify the claim that "There are some scholars who claim the act of honor killing is encouraged in Islam,".

re: the primary sources you quote. again, the stoning of an adulterer by the legal authority is not an "honor killing" - nowhere in the primary texts is the concept of honor killing even present - that is your own deduction. analysis or interpretation of primary source material is not accepted on Wikipedia (see WP:PSTS). please discuss your changes here first before restoring them in the article. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So why remove all the info backed by Qur'an verses? And why did you re-add the improperly sourced info about Indonesia?

Phfor 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

which information do you believe is "backed up" by the Qur'anic verse? is there any source, barring you, claiming that it is relevant to honor killings? as for the material about Indonesia, you may remove it as long as you don't end up reinserting other improperly sourced material. ITAQALLAH 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an, adultery is a punishable sin. ^[10]

“

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, and - flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. [5]

”

... A married man confesses that he has adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones, he tries to escape but is dragged back. ^[11] A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, and she is stoned after giving birth. ^[12]. A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order. ^[13]

Phfor 18:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the talk page is for discussion, Phfor. it is not a repository for material that doesn't meet encyclopedic criteria. ITAQALLAH 18:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, you just asked "which information do you believe is "backed up" by the Qur'anic verse?" so I put part of the article here. Theres a bunch of examples of adulterers being delt with. Phfor 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i see. i would refer you to the question that succeeded that one then. in what way is that relevant to honor killing? and which reliable sources establish its relevance? i don't think the Qur'anic quote can back up any assertion of honor killing, because the verse itself has nothing to do with it. as explained in the last paragraph of my above comment, the enacting of a punishment upon the verdict of the legal authority is not what is considered an 'honor killing' (and the punishment certainly has nothing to do with 'honor'). ITAQALLAH 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Extra judicial killing is haram. But in tribal area, the council of tribal elders are the de facto court of the land and they often sanction such murder. After all, adultry or women marrying outside of Islam is punishable by death. Moreover, the judicially in majority of Muslim country are not run according to sharia. Therefore, some do feel that they are justified in taking sharia into their own hand. So yes, islam may not explicitly endorse these killing but they provide underlying moral justification for it. Vapour (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)