Sahar Amer punks the SBS on "honour" murders and FGM

Qandeel Baloch was strangled by her brother. For "honour".  He believes
he'll go to heaven, as Islam tells him.

Sad to see Australia, my own country, promote lies about Islam. [Reference at the end].  

What's in it for the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), an Australian government supported broadcaster, to publish these lies?  Lies to excuse Islam? Lies to exonerate Islam from any responsibility for the mayhem done in its name?  [Answer at the end].

SBS rolled out a "cultural expert", professor Sahar Amer, to tell us the following:

"... action is needed to dispel 'misinformation' that Islamic teachings incite acts such as ‘honour killings’ and female genital mutilation."

Clever sub-head, because Islam does not, quite, "incite" these acts. But it certainly enables them. (correction: Islam enables both, and positively "incites" FGM)

Both "honour killings" and FGM were indeed cultural practices in Arabia and South Asia when Muhammad came along and foisted Islam on the region. And what his Islam did was to accept and enable these practices. 
Note that the picture (above) which heads the SBS article is of Qandeel Baloch who was murdered by her brother.  He said he did it for "honour", that he was "proud" of what he'd done because he would "end up in heaven". Which religion told him that? Why, Islam, of course. 

Honour killings: If you kill your daughter because she married the wrong man or because she's a bit too westernised there is no penalty in Islam. That is in the authoritative manual of Islamic jurisprudence, the Umdat al-Salik, authorised by Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the oldest and most respected University in the Islamic world:

"The following are not subject to retaliation: ....[my emphasis]

    ... 4) a father or mother for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring". (Umdat al-Salik O.1.2. p 583)

Female Genital Mutilation: this is positively supported in Islam.  

"Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women." (Umdat al-Salik E.4.3. p59)

Professor Amer quotes (just a part of), the Koran 5.32, in support of her assertion that "honour" murders are not Islamic:

"In the Qur'an it says very clearly, that if you harm on a single human being, it's the same as if you had killed all of humanity.

"The terrorists are clearly not listening to the Qur'an's message, which is to be very peaceful. Islam believes that you should never be forced to do anything they cannot understand rationally."

This is a plain lie.  The full context is the exact opposite of what Amer says above.

There's plenty around the internet on this verse, and I've known about its duplicitous misuse for a long time.  Here's an example, from the solid and knowledgeable David Wood :

... [Sura] 5:32 is the most ripped-out-of-context verse of the Qur'an in the West. Muslims (and even news organizations) often refer to this verse in order to show that Islam teaches murder is wrong and saving lives is the prescribed action for all people.
But this is absolutely not what this verse says. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite: that Muslims can kill those who are their enemies! ....
Here is 5:32 in its context, with all words included (emphasis DW):

5.32: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. 

Salient points:
1 - It explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah's command to Muhammad's people.
2 - Even if this were a command to the Muslims, there's still an escape clause: "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." If someone is "spreading mischief", he can still be killed....

... As if this weren't obvious enough from the verse itself, the Qur'an further expounds this point in the very next verse. 5:33 says
5.33: The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. 

This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.

So, what's in it for the SBS to be an apologist for Islam?  What's in it for the Australian government-supported broadcaster to downplay nasty practices enabled by Islam?  Most charitably, they have been taken in by Saher Amer.  They simply don't know.  Moreover, being the nicely multi-culti outfit that they are, they are no doubt more than happy to run anything that sheds a good light on Islam.  They really, really want to believe that Islam really, really is the "Religion of Peace".
As for Sahar Amer?  Well,  she's a scholar at Sydney Uni, with interests including Islam . If I know the background to the [in]famous Sura 5.32, if I've known about it for many years and if I know what its true context is, and if I know how it has been misused and misquoted, then so must Amer.  It's simply inconceivable that she does not. Conclusion: she is simply duplicitous. She's simply trying to make Islam look good (as all good Muslims must).

And, lo! she punks the SMS. Well done Sahar!

The SBS article: "Islam is not responsible for honour killings and female genital mutilation..."  SBS, 28 Aug 2016