From the article:
[quote]A Muslim father accused of murdering his daughter in a so-called “honor killing” told cops God would look out for him, as he confessed to the grisly strangulation, authorities said yesterday.
“God will protect me. God is watching,” Pakistani immigrant Chaudhry Rashid allegedly confessed to cops. “I strangled my daughter.” [/quote]
Robert Spencer observes:
[quote]That’s what he said. Yet Muslim spokesmen in the mainstream media (both liberal and conservative) are routinely allowed to get away with bland denials that honor killing has anything to do with Islam.
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.
Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?
American officials and the mainstream media should be calling upon Muslims in America to institute transparent and inspectable programs that teach against the attitudes that lead to honor killing. Instead, they allow Muslim leaders to disclaim any responsibility. And that means that there will be more Chaudhry Rashids, and more Sandeela Kanwals.[/quote]
The relevant passage of the 'Umdat al-Salik, entitled “Justice”, has some other interesting things to say as well, complete with Qur’anic passages that support these doctrines:
[quote]“… and not to slay the soul that Allah has forbidden, except with right” (Koran 6:151),
“O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain…” (Koran 2:178). ) [/quote]
So, under Islamic law, the someone who kills another deserves retaliation if and only if the person murdered does NOT fall into one of these categories:
[quote]The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) );
-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.[/quote]
So since this guy killed his daughter, he is not subject to punishment under Islamic law, just the same as if he’d killed a non-Muslim. Honor killing and the like are not just pre-Islamic tribal practices, but are sanctioned by Sunni doctrine.
Someone has helpfully posted the entire 'Umdat al-Salik (“Reliance of the Traveller”) online here:
The final relevant quote from the article is this:
[quote] Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, who has worked in the Middle East and Africa and written books on honor killings and genital mutilation in the Muslim world, had another view.
“They do not leave their customs behind when they cross borders, the customs come right with them,” she said. [/quote]
Yes. The customs come with them. Daughter murder, infidel murder, jihad, etc.