Honour killings?

caseyann

I am curious to know how Muslims feel about the recent Alleged honour killing here?


A MAN stabbed so violently — he was clinically dead before being resuscitated by paramedics — has died in hospital in what may be a so-called ‘honour killing’.

Mr Aris, understood to have worked in a branch of Tesco in Drogheda, and a 39-year-old woman, also from Pakistan, were stabbed in the attack at the fifth floor apartment in the Fitzwilliam Court complex in the Co Louth town.

It is understood the woman’s husband moved out of the apartment about six weeks ago.

It is thought that on returning to the property on Thursday, around 2pm, he found the woman in the company of Mr Aris.
One line of inquiry being pursued by gardaí is that this may have been a so-called ‘honour killing’, in which someone — usually a woman — is killed by a member of a family or social group due to the belief that the person has brought dishonour on her family or community.

Where in the Quran is this allowed?

Jaafa

A common misunderstanding. Honor killings are a cultural practice not a religious one.

Any attempt to quote from the Qur'an in order to justify honor killings is usually changing words and or contexts to suit your own needs.

caseyann

Jaafa wrote: »

A common misunderstanding. Honor killings are a cultural practice not a religious one.

Any attempt to quote from the Qur'an in order to justify honor killings is usually changing words and or contexts to suit your own needs.

I was wondering that because they seem to try to use their religious beliefs to justify these honour killings.

Like in sharia law.

Jaafa

caseyann wrote: »

I was wondering that because they seem to try to use their religious beliefs to justify these honour killings.

Like in sharia law.

Give me an example.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jaafa wrote: »

A common misunderstanding. Honor killings are a cultural practice not a religious one.

As in Islamic culture?

Jaafa wrote: »

Any attempt to quote from the Qur'an in order to justify honor killings is usually changing words and or contexts to suit your own needs.

Id be interested in finding out more about this particular aspect. To me, it seems more than a coincidence that honour killings are unique to islamic culture

Jaafa wrote: »

Give me an example.

Ramzan Kadyrov for one. And if im sure, I could find dozens of clerics.

wes

In the West, they call these "crimes of passion", basically the same thing, just with a different name, and this particular crime would fit under that label just as well btw. Also, what differences would it make, if the perpetrator invoked "honor" or "passion"?

Either way it is a horrible crime regardless, and hopefully the perpetrator will be brought to justice.

wes

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

Id be interested in finding out more about this particular aspect. To me, it seems more than a coincidence that honour killings are unique to islamic culture

Well, except that it isn't unique to Islamic cultures. In the West there called "crimes of passion" for example.

Also, you will find it happens among other communities for instance in India among Hindu's:

India caste councils back men over 'honour killings'

So to say that "honour" killings are unique to Islamic cultures is simply BS, and it would only take a quick google search to confirm that fact.

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

Ramzan Kadyrov for one. And if im sure, I could find dozens of clerics.

The President of Chechnya isn't a cleric (if you mean another Ramzan Kadrov, then apologies), and the guy has a laundry lists of pretty vile things that he has done, including disappearing journalists, and other people who spoke out against him.

g5fd6ow0hseima

wes wrote: »

Well, except that it isn't unique to Islamic cultures. In the West there called "crimes of passion" for example.

In the west, they are heinous crimes dealt with in the most severe manner and not some sort of cultural ritual.

wes wrote: »

Also, you will find it happens among other communities for instance in India among Hindu's:

India caste councils back men over 'honour killings'

So to say that "honour" killings are unique to Islamic cultures is simply BS, and it would only take a quick google search to confirm that fact.

These caste heads were speaking in support of people convicted for such crimes. Convicted = illegal.

wes wrote: »

The President of Chechnya isn't a cleric (if you mean another Ramzan Kadrov, then apologies), and the guy has a laundry lists of pretty vile things that he has done, including disappearing journalists, and other people who spoke out against him.

Of course he's not a cleric, but he justifies honour killings on the basis of islam. I simply provided an example of a political figure using islam as justification. Nowhere did I mention him to be a cleric.

wes

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

In the west, they are heinous crimes dealt with in the most severe manner and not some sort of cultural ritual.

These caste heads were speaking in support of people convicted for such crimes. Convicted = illegal.

Lets take a look at what you actually said:

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

Id be interested in finding out more about this particular aspect. To me, it seems more than a coincidence that honour killings are unique to islamic culture

You made no mention of legality at all. You are back tracking here in a big way. You made out that these killings only existed in Islamic cultures, which is simply untrue. You are only now making mention of legality now. Also, I would point out that "honour killings" are also illegal in many Islamic countries, but the perpetrators are basically let get away with it, which you will also find it not unique to those countries either sadly. Again an example from India:

India: Prosecute Rampant ‘Honor’ Killings

Sadly a lot of "honour killing" perpetrators sadly get away with it in India as well.

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

If course he's not a cleric, but he justifies honour killings on the basis of islam. I simply provided an example of a political figure using islam as justification. Nowhere did I mention him to be a cleric.

Apologies, I mis-read what you said.

g5fd6ow0hseima

wes wrote: »

You made no mention of legality at all. You are back tracking here in a big way. You made out that these killings only existed in Islamic cultures, which is simply untrue. You are only now making mention of legality now. Also, I would point out that "honour killings" are also illegal in many Islamic countries, but the perpetrators are basically let get away with it, which you will also find it not unique to those countries either sadly. Again an example from India:

India: Prosecute Rampant ‘Honor’ Killings

Sadly a lot of "honour killing" perpetrators sadly get away with it in India as well.

Okay, I now admit I was wrong by stating its exclusivity to Islam. It seems that in India, the problem is centred in mainly rural, patriarchal communities. In such clannish communities, it is possible to understand the lengths to which the communities will go to protect their own social prestige. Honour killings aren't far removed from ostracisation - all part and parcel of religious conservatism of course.

Although you have corrected me, it's undeniable that honor killings are synonymous with Islam. Indeed, the legal codes of some muslim states demonsrate just how engrained in society they are - the fact that they warranting legal legislation says it all.

Yes, there are muslim states which have outlawed it. But as you've pointed out, such crimes are rarely reprimanded by the courts. And I ask why? where did the notion come from? Why are they commonplace from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Turkey and Palestine? I dont think they are regional cultural nuances. Is it a coincidence that these countries are muslim?

wes

Elianna Huge Commando wrote: »

Although you have corrected me, it's undeniable that honor killings are synonymous with Islam. Indeed, the legal codes of some muslim states demonsrate just how engrained in society they are - the fact that they warranting legal legislation says it all.

Yes, there are muslim states which have outlawed it. But as you've pointed out, such crimes are rarely reprimanded by the courts. And I ask why? where did the notion come from? Why are they commonplace from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Turkey and Palestine? I dont think they are regional cultural nuances. Is it a coincidence that these countries are muslim?

Well, considering that "Honour" killings also happen in non-Muslim majority countries and are in some of those countries, there rarely dealt as well as they should, would show me that the linkage has little to do with any particular Religion, as it seems to happen amongst different Religious groups even in Muslim majority states for example:

Murdered in name of family honour

So, again "honour" killings happening among many different Religious groups in several different countries, were people get away with the murders on a regular basis. Again, I see nothing uniquely Muslim about it, as I pointed out many other instances that happen amongst other Religious groups.

The reasoning for all groups would be pretty similar to the reasoning your describe in your own post.

caseyann

The thing is though wes,I dont believe in western society brother and cousins and sisters etc... Would agree she deserved it or take part in stoning killing etc.. of a woman or anyone in crimes of passion,just the husband.

wes

caseyann wrote: »

The thing is though wes,I dont believe in western society brother and cousins and sisters etc... Would agree she deserved it or take part in stoning killing etc.. of a woman or anyone in crimes of passion,just the husband.

True enough, but nonetheless, I was replying to a specific point that was being made at the time. To be fair in the West the attitudes to these crimes mean that they are rightly punished, but in countries like Indian, Pakistan, etc attitudes in those countries mean that people will often get away with it. My point is that this attitude isn't unique to just Muslims, but exists across multiple communities in these countries. A

Attitudes towards such crimes need to be changes in those countries, and these attitudes need to change across all communities in those countries as well.

caseyann

wes wrote: »

True enough, but nonetheless, I was replying to a specific point that was being made at the time. To be fair in the West the attitudes to these crimes mean that they are rightly punished, but in countries like Indian, Pakistan, etc attitudes in those countries mean that people will often get away with it. My point is that this attitude isn't unique to just Muslims, but exists across multiple communities in these countries. A

Attitudes towards such crimes need to be changes in those countries, and these attitudes need to change across all communities in those countries as well.

I agree many of the people i know who are Muslim would never allow any such thing to happen to their daughters or wives.But on same note i find quite unfair they would dis own their daughters sisters for going against the mans and families will like marrying outside Muslim religion.
I know long time back it was the same in Ireland.
I remember reading in England people got away with it under sharia law?
You are free to show me i am wrong,I didnt see the outcome of the honour killings that happened there.


One thing i do know shouldnt be given a name of honour killing at all and plain murder or abuse or grievous bodily harm or assault in all countries.And ban it from being labled in such a down graded manner.As using the word honour in it at all.No honour in degrading and murder.

wes

caseyann wrote: »

I remember reading in England people got away with it under sharia law?
You are free to show me i am wrong,I didnt see the outcome of the honour killings that happened there.

I haven't heard of any such case in the UK. Plenty of Muslims have been found guilty of "honour killings" in the UK.

caseyann wrote: »

One thing i do know shouldnt be given a name of honour killing at all and plain murder or abuse or grievous bodily harm or assault in all countries.And ban it from being labled in such a down graded manner.As using the word honour in it at all.No honour in degrading and murder.

Yes, they should be called something else. I try to put "honour" in quotes when mentioning such crimes.

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

I am curious to know how Muslims feel about the recent Alleged honour killing here?


A MAN stabbed so violently — he was clinically dead before being resuscitated by paramedics — has died in hospital in what may be a so-called ‘honour killing’.

Mr Aris, understood to have worked in a branch of Tesco in Drogheda, and a 39-year-old woman, also from Pakistan, were stabbed in the attack at the fifth floor apartment in the Fitzwilliam Court complex in the Co Louth town.

It is understood the woman’s husband moved out of the apartment about six weeks ago.

It is thought that on returning to the property on Thursday, around 2pm, he found the woman in the company of Mr Aris.
One line of inquiry being pursued by gardaí is that this may have been a so-called ‘honour killing’, in which someone — usually a woman — is killed by a member of a family or social group due to the belief that the person has brought dishonour on her family or community.

Where in the Quran is this allowed?

Quite simply, it is not allowed in Islam. It is murder, plain and simple.

Honour killings are a cultural problem and it happens in Sikh, Hindu and Christian communities also.

EDIT: I posted this article below, it is a news report from the BBC in 2003 where the police said:

Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.

A specialist police unit is researching the practice but police say only a handful of people believed 'honour killings' were an appropriate cultural response.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

Marcus.Aurelius

The Quran seems to indicate some sort of punishment for women guilty of lewdness. Although there is no verse that I could find advocating death as a penalty for it.

4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”

Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”

Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."

Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display."

Now some sahih hadiths:

Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)


Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”

Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."

Seems contradictory at best, criminally insane at worst. Am I missing something?

bmarley

It is all about control - the control of women mainly...how people can treat members of their own society or family in this way is beyond belief..and they would claim to be civilised?

irishconvert

bmarley wrote: »

It is all about control - the control of women mainly...how people can treat members of their own society or family in this way is beyond belief..and they would claim to be civilised?

If you come here to ask question and learn the real facts about Islam, you are welcome. If you come here to cast stereotypes and post ignorant statements then go elsewhere.

Marcus.Aurelius

Is there anyone willing to explain the inconsistencies between the Quran verses and the various hadith quoted above? Is there some rehabilitative over-ride for the statements made?

hivizman

The inconsistency between the Qur'an and hadith as regards the punishment for zina has come up in several threads on this forum, for example:

Stoning to death and sharia law

Sharia law

To summarise:

(1) The Qur'anic punishment for zina is not stoning.

(2) There are various hadiths in which Muhammad is reported to have accepted stoning as a punishment for zina. Each of these incidents has special circumstances surrounding it (for example, in one case it could be argued that Muhammad acquiesced in stoning of a Jew accused of zina because this is the punishment set out in the Torah, and Muhammad wanted to make the point that the Jews could not pick and choose which bits of the Torah they were prepared to enforce and which bits they would ignore). At least two of the hadith incidents suggest that Muhammad was highly reluctant to require stoning as a punishment, but that the alleged adulterers more or less insisted on being stoned.

(3) Some writers argue that the incidents reported in these hadiths occurred before the Qur'anic punishment for zina was revealed, and hence have been overruled by the Qur'an.

(4) There are various hadiths relating to the successors to Muhammad, who appear to have approved stoning. In one of these, Umar claims that there was a "verse of stoning" that had been revealed to Muhammad, but when the Qur'an was being compiled, written evidence of this verse could not be found - allegedly the record of the verse had been kept under Aisha's bed and had been eaten by a goat.

(5) Most of the subsequent legal scholars put more weight on the hadiths than on the Qur'an, but if the Qur'an is accepted as primary in terms of the source of legislation, and it is agreed that actions of Muhammad's successors cannot override the Qur'an, then there is an argument within the terms of Islamic jurisprudence that stoning is not a valid punishment for zina.

(6) Proving zina within the requirements of Sharia is virtually impossible - the basic requirement is four independent male witnesses of the actual act of vaginal penetration.

(7) In any event, if stoning is a mandatory punishment within Sharia, it has to be carried out by the authorities of a proper Islamic state. It should not be undertaken by private individuals.

Marcus.Aurelius

Thanks for the reply, I will try to read through your links before making any more comments.

vinchick

wes wrote: »

In the West, they call these "crimes of passion", basically the same thing, just with a different name, and this particular crime would fit under that label just as well btw. Also, what differences would it make, if the perpetrator invoked "honor" or "passion"?

Either way it is a horrible crime regardless, and hopefully the perpetrator will be brought to justice.

When I studied criminal law honour killings were not classed with crimes of passion as most of them were premeditated. Crimes of passion were reserved for those who lost control in the moment and acted out of character. You can't claim a crime of passion if you go away and plan and prepare for the killing, a factor which existed in most of the honour killings I have come across. It has to be in the moment, sudden and unexpected.

wes

vinchick wrote: »

When I studied criminal law honour killings were not classed with crimes of passion as most of them were premeditated. Crimes of passion were reserved for those who lost control in the moment and acted out of character. You can't claim a crime of passion if you go away and plan and prepare for the killing, a factor which existed in most of the honour killings I have come across. It has to be in the moment, sudden and unexpected.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Is this the case in most countries??

vinchick

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Is this the case in most countries??

It is when it comes to most common law countries, which are the ones that I focused on. I am not sure about other systems for definite but with killings and assaults every little factor is taken into account such as planning. If it was premeditated a harsher sentence usually applies due to the level of culpability that can be applied to the offender. It seems to be a universal principal but with law there are always exceptions to the rules!

allibastor

i would just love to know how many of the people who claim to be devout religious people can justify this, culture or not. how can any person justify the beating to death of a child who has been raped? or of a woman who has done nothing really wrong except have suspission cast on her. i read a story about a woman who was eight months pregnant and was tortured and killed because her father-in-law though she had commited adultery.

i would like to know who in thier right mind would condone these sort of things.

oceanclub

wes wrote: »

In the West, they call these "crimes of passion", basically the same thing

Hmm, not really. I mean, I can't think of a "crime of passion" where whole families are sentenced:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/305893/belgiums-first-honour-killing-trial-ends-sends-family-to-prison/

Also, "crimes of passions" are solitary activities normally done at the spur of the moment. Honour killings are, by their nature, collaborative and pre-meditated.

While I wouldn't want to see this issue become something just about Islamophobia or hyped up (in the UK there are an estimated dozen every year which, while a dozen too many, does not indicate an epidemic), neither should there be hand-waving or attempts to play it down.

P.

wes

oceanclub wrote: »

Hmm, not really. I mean, I can't think of a "crime of passion" where whole families are sentenced:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/305893/belgiums-first-honour-killing-trial-ends-sends-family-to-prison/

Also, "crimes of passions" solitary activities normally done at the spur of the moment. Honour killings are, by their nature, collaborative and pre-meditated.

While I wouldn't want to see this issue become something just about Islamophobia or hyped up (in the UK there are an estimated dozen every year which, while a dozen too many, does not indicate an epidemic), neither should there be hand-waving or attempts to play it down.

P.

Ok, as you can see from earlier in the thread from several months ago, the difference was explained and I accepted that:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70067180&postcount=24

I was mistaken, and accepted that.....

oceanclub

wes wrote: »

Ok, as you can see from earlier in the thread from several months ago, the difference was explained and I accepted that:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70067180&postcount=24

I was mistaken, and accepted that.....

Ah, didn't the realise the thread was so old! Sorry about that.

P.

allibastor

yeah, an old thread, i just re read it and wanted to ask the questions. i find it increadably disturbing. saw a video in which a family who beat a ten year old to death, then filmed the body and showed it off. how in any gods names could someone do that.

irishconvert

allibastor wrote: »

yeah, an old thread, i just re read it and wanted to ask the questions. i find it increadably disturbing. saw a video in which a family who beat a ten year old to death, then filmed the body and showed it off. how in any gods names could someone do that.

As was pointed out earlier, so called "honour killings" are not allowed in Islam. If you read the thread you would know this, so why post about it again?

allibastor

irishconvert wrote: »

As was pointed out earlier, so called "honour killings" are not allowed in Islam. If you read the thread you would know this, so why post about it again?

i never said anything about Islam Son, i said about those who claim to be devout religious nuts, then go and kill family member, but yes, this one case i read about was an Islam family. and to be fair it is mostly Islam, Muslim and Arab states where this happens. i dont remember reding of too many irish catholic Honour killings, do you?

Hobbes

allibastor wrote: »

...

The point is why are you posting it here to an old thread? Are you expecting someone to answer you and explain why it is justified? If so you are likely to be disappointed, and you would know this by reading the thread.

If it is a rhetorical question, then it isn't adding any value to the thread by bumping.

Your last comment is just bordering on trolling. So please remain within the subject matter of the thread.

allibastor

Sorry, I didnt realise that just because a thread was old i could not post on it. maybe that should be said on the search bar.

And it is relevent to the topic, it is about honour killings. i wanted to find out what people think of it, how people who claim to follow thier VARIOUS religions can justify it. its the same with chatolics and murder by the way. i dont know how anyone who says they follow the way of a god can then kill someone, but i find that the honour killing system does mainly come from the outlined backgrounds. it has also been proven in many countries that the act of honour killing may be illegal, but the accused has actually got the law on thier side. correct me if i am wrong?

Hobbes

allibastor wrote: »

Sorry, I didnt realise that just because a thread was old i could not post on it. maybe that should be said on the search bar.

Posting without adding value to the thread is normally bad etiquette.

i wanted to find out what people think of it, how people who claim to follow thier VARIOUS religions can justify it.

Those questions have already been answered, but if you are looking for someone to justify it they may eventually (if they exist here) speak up. There is no need to keep bumping.

allibastor

Hobbes wrote: »

Posting without adding value to the thread is normally bad etiquette.



Those questions have already been answered, but if you are looking for someone to justify it they may eventually (if they exist here) speak up. There is no need to keep bumping.

i dont know what value you can add to it really, i was more askngi the question of how it happens, and mainly in cultures where the general populous are very religious. and no, i dont think the question of why the victim is killed for the family honour has been answered either. you seem very annoyed that i ask these questions. i dont know why, i am simply asking questions on articles i have read, is that not the point of boards?

Hobbes

allibastor wrote: »

you seem very annoyed that i ask these questions.

I am not annoyed with the question. If I was I would have said something sooner when you first posted, and then continued to ask the same question over and over.

i would just love to know how many of the people who claim to be devout religious people can justify this, culture or not.

Answered already, in relation to Islam. The forum is about ISLAM. If you want an answer from another religion another forum that covers that religion might help or you might get lucky with an answer here.

Your further comments seem to be less about Islam and more to know about Honor killings as they relate to other countries. Also I found the comment "i dont remember reding of too many irish catholic Honour killings, " somewhat trolling.

So in summary.. You have asked your question, lets see who answers and keep the subject matter at least relevant to the forum/thread.