Iraqi-Kurdistan: The Only Appropriate Response to Honor Killings and Fatal Fatwas
Keith Windschuttle has provided a powerful historical example of the only appropriate response to "honor" killings and fatal fatwas:Sir Charles Napier, the British Commander-in-chief in India from 1849 to 1851, signed an agreement with local Hindu leaders that he would respect all their customs, except for the practice of suttee, the incineration of widows. The Hindu leaders protested. Napier replied:Hat tip: Oxblog.You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.  Some might object to relying on the example of a colonial warrior, namely Napier, who oppressed and imposed Western values on both India and Afghanistan. Yes, colonialism was and is wrong. Yes, Napier and the British imposed their will on the people of India and Afghanistan.However, whatever else they may have done, they did not "oppress" the people of India by preventing grieving widows from being burned alive. Moreover, we are not now talking about imposing our values on some foreign culture (no matter how beneficial, as in the case of the British ban on the practice of suttee, doing so may be), but instead about deciding for ourselves the values we uphold and, most importantly, are willing to defend. At some point one must decide what type of society one wants to live in and, far more importantly, wants one's children and grandchildren to live in. A society, such as the India of Napier's time, where widows are burned to death? A society where religious authorities can issue a fatal fatwa against one who has written a scholarly book? A society where a young woman can be murdered with impunity by those who "do not like girls to choose who they marry?" At this point in history, some things are simply wrong and should not, and cannot, be tolerated. As a result, Napier's dictum can and should be applied to honor killings: You say that it is your custom to kill any young woman who has the unmitigated gall to choose who she wants to marry. Very well. However, we also have a custom: to defend to the death such a young woman and, if she is killed, to hunt down, prosecute and fully punish the persons responsible for her death. Attempt to kill her; we shall defend her. Succeed in killing her; we shall ensure that you pay fully for your crime. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.Napier's dictum can and should also be applied to those who issue fatal fatwas: You say that it is your custom to kill any person who has the audacity to criticize your religion. Very well. However, we also have a custom: to defend to the death the right of a person to speak his mind even if we disagree with him and, if he is killed, to hunt down and fully punish the persons responsible for his death. Attempt to kill a person for speaking his mind; we shall defend him. Succeed in killing him; we shall ensure that you pay fully for your crime. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.Finally, lest it appear that I am being overly critical of Iraqi-Kurdistan, allow me to note that this is a lesson that the West must also relearn. Indeed, Iraqi-Kurdistan has an opportunity to serve as an example for the West. It need only seize that opportunity. |
posted by Charles Chapman at 3/10/2006 06:37:00 AM
Comments on "Iraqi-Kurdistan: The Only Appropriate Response to Honor Killings and Fatal Fatwas"
-
Hoots said ... (3/11/2006 5:50 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3/12/2006 8:41 AM) :
-
Wintermute said ... (3/12/2006 11:19 PM) :
-
jb said ... (3/13/2006 12:47 AM) :
-
Charles Chapman said ... (3/13/2006 2:05 AM) :
post a commentI came across this quote in a comment thread somewhere and almost blogged about it. You beat me to it.
Good post.
Interesting blog, by the way. I added it to my aggregator recently and forgot why but I'm glad that I did.
And "colonialism was and is wrong" why?
Because it forced decent civilized values on dark-age societies?
I am tired of negative carping about the West, when with few exceptions, such as the Belgian depradations in the Congo regions, it brought startling benefit to the rest of the world, especially I proudly add, in British-ruled areas.
Examples are rife. It eliminated slavery in most parts of the world. In India it stopped the endless slaughter and destruction of Hindu and Buddhist cultures by proto-Islamist invaders. It introduced secular Enlightenment values to the religion-cursed . It kick-started a global industrial economy with railways and open trade. It seeded the rule of law and honest government everywhere. It created vast trading blocks including an entire united sub-continent, and started the ball rolling to worldwide free trade. Among further examples it led to the creation of the world largest democracy.
Not bad. Name one other phenomenon in the course of human endeavour which has had such an overwhelming positive impact.
I just ran across the mate incineration example in the landmark no-polygamy SCt Reynolds case, c. 1878.
By the divide-and-rule methods they used to govern, the British and other colonial masters directly caused the problems we are currently facing.
Wouldn't you rather they'd found a different way to end the dark ages?
By the divide-and-rule methods they used to govern, the British and other colonial masters directly caused the problems we are currently facing.
That is far from a self-evident truth. Yes, the colonial powers drew boundaries with no regard to tribal and religious allegiances or the boundaries that would have evolved but for their intervention. But to say that is the "cause" of our current troubles is a stretch at best. Indeed, it is consistent with the irrebutable presumption of the Left that the West is the "root cause" for all suffering in the world. It is also an insult to Muslims, even extremist Muslims, as it implies they are not responsible for their own behavior.