Certainty and Denial

Submitted by repsac3 (United States), Feb 21, 2009 at 06:58

"I was wondering RepSac3, why you so vehemently and strongly want to deny the possibility and even probability of an Honor Killing rather than DV."

I am not denying the possibility in any way, shape, or form. In the comment to which you're replying, I very clearly say that this very well may turn out to be an honor killing that meets a number of the HK vs DV characteristics that Phyllis Chesler lays out in her study (& that Mr. Pipes reprints here), once all the facts are in. If you believe that I ever said this could not be an honor killing, your argument is with a straw man of your own making. If you believe that there is no possibility that this could be anything but an honor killing, based only on the facts available today, I think you're jumping to conclusions based on facts not yet not in evidence, and judging from his reply to me, so does Mr. Pipes. (And just so we're clear, I agree with everything in his response.

It is just as wrong to summarily decide that this is nothing but domestic violence, and to deny any possible link to honor killing.) By the time this case goes to trial--if not sooner--the facts will be made public, and we can all make informed decisions as to what this murder was about. Those who claim to be certain today, based only on the few facts we have, more than likely have a personal, professional, or political interest in pushing the view of this case they champion, whether it be honor killing or domestic violence. I hope that makes my position more clear.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".