My Response

Routine is a little strong. ‘Not unheard of’ might be more apt.
[Actual rate appears to be 2+ reported/month as researched by user FFFthisshit in his comment]

/someone living in the Middle East

EDIT: Since this got more eyes than I was expecting, a little more detail might be appreciated. I am an American living in Jordan for the summer, and this is only what I’ve managed to learn in my time so far. It’s important to consider the scenario objectively, because Western morals do not translate perfectly.

First, the concept of respect is a BIG DEAL. Respect, honor, propriety, class, status, whatever you want to call it, it matters. Not in the sense that you have to defer to those above you (just respect them, like a Christian might respect a pastor) but in the sense that one of a higher level does not want to be of a lower level. Now, that’s sort of a fuzzy thing to care so much about–to not want to be something–but it’s a distinction because these people are all about helping those below them. That’s what Ramadan is about (it’s next week, did you know that?) — you fast during the day, food, water, nicotine, gum, nothing enters your mouth so you can feel for a month what the poor feel all their lives. So there’s a recognition of the poor, and a respect for them, but you don’t want to enter what is called the “shame culture” which are the lower class workers, often above the dirt poor, and and who do much of the menial labor. This is a little unclear, but that’s how explaining a culture goes. The point is, there are class strata and you protect your position at all cost and want to move up. If you move down, it is extraordinarily shameful because…

Tight-knit communities mean everyone knows everyone and a lot of people are family. If you lose your status, or honor, EVERYONE knows. That’s another reason why there isn’t much crime. If you’re a criminal, or a thief (which is a serious offense here) everyone will shun you, potentially even your family. Your black mark will be the black mark of anyone who aids you until you’ve undone it. Those who harbor a thief make a den of thieves, see where they’re coming from? The consequences of committing a crime go up, and you see less crime. How this applies to honor killing is obvious: If you do something to bring unfathomable shame upon yourself, you bring it upon your family.

Now, for the twist that makes it all sort of make sense. Remember, think objectively. These countries are not governed solely by governmental heads and courts and elected officials–they also have tribal heads, courts, and officials. Most Arabs (and by most I mean all) are born into a tribe, complete with a Chief (Sheikh) who oversees his tribe. There are tribal laws, and there are tribal courts. There are also inter-tribal courts. If you commit a crime, the shame falls on you, your family, and your tribe. It is recognized by your friends, your family, and all of the other tribes. The death penalty exists in tribal court. If you commit a horrible act, your tribe can sentence you to death (just like your country can if you’re American). BUT there is a hierarchy of courts, and the order goes Family, Tribal, Governmental. Thus, if something can’t be solved in the tribal court it goes to the governmental courts (but the governmental courts accept the legitimacy and the ruling of the tribal courts). But it starts with the family, remember? If I were Arab and I stole a male camel from my brother (the value of a house) the tribal court would have a very serious punishment for me, but my brother or our father could mete out a lesser punishment because he is the head of the family and then the matter wouldn’t be taken to tribal court. Families can solve their own issues, and families can solve issues they have with other families without going to tribal court or inter-tribal court. It’s only with that background that we can understand honor killings, and you probably get it by now. If a family feels so shamed that they would see death as a fitting punishment, then they can enact it and it is respected by the higher courts. This is very rare in most places, and is a product of social and class hierarchy (not necessarily religion–religion only reinforces the gender class structure, the two are separate and accepted separately by the people), the legal system, the values surrounding honor and women, and many other factors.

If you found this valuable let me know. I also have a few comments farther down with more context.

Third Commentor

I certainly find it valuable in an attempt to understand what’s going on. It’s just very hard not to see something like honor killings as culturally backwards or deficient. I’m not trying to ignore America’s history of indigenous genocide or play that “Westerners are so much more progressive”. This is just incredibly hard for me to swallow. Particularly so when many of the honor killings I see are incredibly violent. We may impose the death penalty here, but we at least play at making it humane. For a father to throw rocks at his daughter’s head until she dies for spending time with a guy he doesn’t approve of…I mean, is empathy something their culture just ignores?

My Follow-up/Response

I don’t mean that we should abandon our conception of morality, but cultural relativism (despite the fact that many who are experts in the field feel it has no ground) is, I think important in at least understanding the motivations of people. I think often people can’t get around their own preconceptions so they are unable to process the alien logic behind the actions of foreigners. My stressing the need to be open-minded was simply to prevent the same polarized response that the concept of honor killing so often engenders in Westerners. Not that it isn’t wrong, but if we can bend our minds to see how it somehow might not be wrong, then we can at least begin to try to reconcile the two in a way that is more amenable to constructive change than reactionary, righteous fomenting of hate.

The reasons behind stoning are, I believe (I am shamefully ignorant of Islam and this culture, hence why I came), largely rooted in the Khoran. However, the difference between the Khoranic way and the cultural way is often a little blurred. [If you will allow me to digress, I will do so in brackets. Shari3 Law -- (that 3 is the letter Ayne, pronounced as a deep A sound in your throat like you're speaking from below your Adam's apple, it will help to put your tongue against your lower teeth and form it into a depressed bowl shape. The 'ah' we often see is an approximation of the sound, but that's because American media wants to make things simple for you instead of teaching you that 26 letters can't make all the sounds your mouth can. You're a global citizen and you can learn about the Ayne now.) Anyway, Shari3 Law is a term we often hear in the media and don't know much about. It's the law of Islam--the Khoranic Law. And the Khoran is a little different from the Bible because Mohammad channeled god and got more specific laws which are known collectively as Shariah Law. It's one law because it's God's law, and god only has a way to act, not a law, you see? It's not what you can and cannot do, it's how you should be. Thus, one law. Now, Shari3 is the Arabic word for "street". Why is it called Shari3 Law? Because life is a road--a path--a way, and this is the law of the way. Shari3 law is the law of the road of your life. Now we're beginning to see how in a Muslim country, the law and the culture overlap a bit. Examples: To say you're full, "Alhumdilallah" (God is great! Essentially, look how good God is, for I have enough food to be overfed!), if something will happen in the future you say when discussing it "Insha'allah" ("If God wills it." Essentially, God controls everything, so if he sees fit for the apocalypse to happen before Monday, or before the dinner, or whenever the event will take place, then so be it.) These sayings are said by everyone, all the time, regardless of religion. I was out at the market the other day and was told that eating dates with milk, but no more than 7, every morning was good for my digestion. I later learned that they say so because it was a habit of Mohammed's.] So, back to stoning–What is said in the Khoran has become ingrained in the culture, so while stoning might be something that is prescribed in the Khoran, it’s not going to be easily dismissed. There are plenty of liberal Muslims, and many are fine with picking and choosing what we would see as absurdities to modernize the religion with contemporary moral standards, but there are still the holdouts who would approve of stonings.

As for empathy, the women seem to have more than the men on the whole. The women are, from what I’ve seen and heard, more progressive while the men are more conservative. Some of this is from Western beauty standards leaking over, actually, and, as you can imagine, the older men hate that and the younger men love it. You think Catholic girls are bad? One of my Jordanian friends estimated 90% of Muslim girls in the city would do anal before marriage. Take it with a grain of salt, but it’s at least there and thriving. So if you’re a conservative father from the deep desert and your daughter is in Western nightclubs and having anal sex, and that gets around, and honor is the number one thing you and your community care about–then you do what makes you right by god, because that is the compassionate thing to do for your daughter, and she knew exactly what her punishment would be for doing it from the day she was born.

Empathy does exist in the culture, and the hospitality is unprecedented, but there is saying, “By God I am fine,” which sums it up. There is no law but God’s law, regardless of what man may say otherwise. If you believe in that, and in God, then even empathy cannot stand up to it.

Fourth Commentor

The tribal system isn’t that strong any more in Jordan.
Though honour killings still happens, as horrendous as it is, the number is going down.
And though 15-20 women a year is 15-20 women too many, the trend is a little positive.
The concept of honour killings is highly contentious in most Muslim countries (I honestly doesn’t know much about Saudi internal affairs, but they are always an odd one out), and there is active debate.

My Response

Right, but people in Western countries act like it’s a “thing” that Muslims do when really it’s more quantifiable in instances. As for the tribal system, you’re right that it isn’t that strong but it still has precedence before the government’s courts, which I think relative to the way other countries handle things makes it pretty damn strong, even though the institution itself and its practice is perhaps waning. It’s fascinating watching the Arab world adapt to the worlds around it.

Fifth Commentor (Responding to my first post)

Barbarians. Gotcha.

My Response

Ooh rah, right, grunt?

Fifth Commentor’s Response to Me

What’s your term for ‘primitive throwback culture’?

My Response

What do you mean by primitive and what do you mean by throwback? If you’re implying that I could be using those terms to describe the men on the Syrian border who talk on their Jawbones while surfing the internet on their netbooks and watching Arabs Got Talent–and, yes, these comprise most of the men who are committing the stonings, not geographically but as a class–then I would have a hard time applying either in good faith. Despite what Rolling Stone may have to say, I have a hard time describing a people as primitive or throwback in an overarching sense if they can sing the lyrics of the Backstreet Boys from heart. I am aware of the irony, and some of them are too.

The terms I used are neutral in order to facilitate reflection on the concepts. This is difficult to do when we typically think of the subject at a distance, so I avoided that distancing language to help us think in a different pattern. As this is DepthHub, that is something of the point. In acedemia there is debate over which terms are best to use in order to not offend any cultures. In general, if the situation does not call for it, I avoid comparative language in academic discussions because it frames the idea with a slant that doesn’t serve the discussion.

His Response

Possessing modern technology and knowing song lyrics don’t make them enlightened. I was referring to their culture. I don’t understand the first paragraph at all.

I don’t care about offending their culture, because their culture offends me. Also, using neutral terms in this context obstructs reality, and is a form of the Golden Mean Fallacy. Good day.

My Response

If you are asking for a culture that I think is enlightened, then I would say I am partial to the Norwegians, despite their flaws. If you are asking for a culture opposite to that, I would suggest the Sentinelese people who live on the Andaman Islands, as they have not been receptive to outside contact and live as their ancestors have for thousands of years (though maybe not on those islands).

It would have been far clearer if you said what you meant. As members of their greater culture, I still would not call users of technology “primitive”, nor viewers of live Western-style TV shows as “throwback”. It would appear that you do not actually know the culture that offends you, nor the people of it. Do you feel justified in your offense?

Fortunately for you, a culture is not a conscious thing which can be offended, so you are at no risk of offending their culture, regardless of how much that burden would weigh on you. Neutral terms do not obstruct realty, they clarify it, but you are choosing your subjective reality as the one you wish to see, as opposed to the objective reality which I have swept clean before you.  I should also mention that the Golden Mean Fallacy is tangentially related to this, but I am not guilty of it because I am not implying the answer lies in the middle. To assess one pole it is necessary not to stand on the other, thus, bringing yourself momentarily more to the middle. You came to this discussion with your answer, so I am not sure why you stuck around.