Man Beheads Wife in 'Honor' Killing

Whether this man's actions stem from a deep-seeded primal instinct, as you say, to dominate the female and assert ownership, as humans, throughout many different cultures and countries, we have created laws to which we adhere to in order to maintain civility and peace. Primal instinct or not, religion or not, if we are to follow the laws that are dictated by our countries, then what this man did was unlawful. It is not brainless stupidity to assert this opinion. In America, murder is against the law and cannot be justified by 'primal' instinct or religion. Mitigating circumstances as well as insanity defenses are considered, but murder is murder and it is punishable by the law of which country you reside in. What exceptional knowledge of this specific case leads you to think you have more brain power when it comes to understanding motives of this man's actions?

???? You have torture prisons, you kill more people than probably any other country [and thats before we even count the murders by invasion] You sell 50% of all arms in the world, support dictators and consider the "price is right" if 500,000 children die of starvation from actions taken by you.

The veneer of civility is thin in all societies. Its why there is so much noise over one beheading where the man confessed and is charged, but when 500,000 children are killed from preventable causes, no one even musters up an opinion.

SAM, just out of curiosity, does that provision include when a husband throws acid in his wife's face ?

What was the sentence given?

Sorry, but imo anyone that beheads someone else should be prosecuted for murder unless it was in self-defense (which I highly doubt).
Same with acid-in-the-face, prosecute the offender.

You think everyone should be under one legal system? Sign up for the ICC.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Honour killings are a cultural expression of a basic primate instinct, on the part of males, to assert ownership over females, for reproductive purposes. It has bugger all to do with religion (except that religion is usurped to justify the behaviour) so the bulk of the comments in this thread are irrelevant, shallow and pointless.

(Sometimes I wonder if anyone on this forum has a brain.)

I'm also wondering how any human being can not only fail to feel sickened by this cruelty, but have the sheer audacity to broadcast their indifference on an internet forum.

And if, as you seem to be suggesting, this is some kind of condonable 'human instinct', why don't we just lift all domestic violence laws? Discrimination against women? The murder charge itself? Hell, why judge our 'primate' urges?

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Or you could ask 12 "peers" to decide what should be done.

But the victim's family has a greater stake.

What are you talking about? The jury doesn't decide the sentence. They only decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of the charges laid against them. The judge will then decide an appropriate sentence based on the law that already exists. Look, S.A.M., don't feel that your religion/culture is being attacked here. It is only the crimes of this handful of people that we find abhorrent. Try and keep to a logical, reasoned argument.
 
Last edited:
How is it a basic primal instinct by males when whole families are involved? Some of these things are planned like having a picnic.

Mama says to papa, 'I'll lure her in here, you and the boys take care of business"
Meanwhile, another family is planning mama's daughter's demise. Everyone involved, two families, no one guilty of murder because they were merely upholding honor. The statistics are skewed.
 
SAM said:
I'm surprised that the gvmt of the country makes it ok to behead someone. Not a viallage or a Taliban run council, but the gvmt.

It doesn't. They simply have a provision where the victims family can forgive the criminal involved.
It's more than that- they also have separate categories of crime for motives of "honor", with much lighter penalties or none at all.


SAM said:
Lastly, as someone has pointed out, who said it was an honor killing?
Usually, in the famous cases, the perps. A little investigation brings up a fair number of cases in which "honor" was used to cover things like acquisition of valuable land from the people killed.

But the existence of the custom makes that possible. And the possibility of being able to count on forgiveness - coerced or complicit is as good as genuine - opens up yet more schemes.
SAM said:
I for one, believe the proof is in the pudding. I've lived 5 years in Saudi Arabia and I know that just because a society is different doesn't make it less viable. So I would like to see statistics that more women are abused, raped, killed or treated violently in countries where pardon is permitted than in those where prisons overflow, before I pass an opinion.
That comparison would not tell you much. Murders of black people were less common in areas of the US where lynching was a custom, for example. Recorded rapes and other abuses of black women were lower in number. And occasional lynching of black people was part of a viable Jim Crow culture, apparently - at any rate, it lasted for generations and was only broken up by force.
 
It is illegal, and punishable by death. If the government doesn't take action, usually wife's family will or provincial courts will. Pakistani moral laws are very strict in this regard.

Don't listen to iceaura, she is racist against Pakistanis, and hates Muslims. It's common for her to say these ridiculous things.

If I was to use the same analogy to America, I could make it seem like all parents in US drown their children.

It's the imperialistic and white supremacist attitude which makes people think others need to be civilized. Some people just need an excuse to vent their racial animosities.

Important thing to realize that such a practice is not condoned by any society, Western, Muslim, or whatever. Only uneducated bigots try to make it seem that way.
 
diamond said:
Don't listen to iceaura, she is racist against Pakistanis, and hates Muslims. It's common for her to say these ridiculous things.
I quoted a source, and could have quoted dozens of others*. Was the source also racist against Pakistanis, and full of hatred against Muslims?

Your claim of one honor killing per year in Pakistan is nonsense.
diamond said:
It is illegal, and punishable by death. If the government doesn't take action, usually wife's family will or provincial courts will. Pakistani moral laws are very strict in this regard.
Pakistan does not enforce these laws rigorously in all areas.

In the US we are familiar with such situations - the laws against polygamy have not been rigorously enforced in some areas, many laws forbidding violence against persons were not rigorously enforced in cases of white violence against black people in some areas.

*Here's another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
wikipedia said:
On December 8, 2004, under international and domestic pressure, Pakistan enacted a law that made honour killings punishable by a prison term of seven years, or by the death penalty in the most extreme cases.
Apparently there are a fair number of these cases - so that we have special categories of law for the "extreme" ones.

Furthermore:
Women's rights organizations were, however, wary of this law as it stops short of outlawing the practice of allowing killers to buy their freedom by paying compensation to the victim's relatives. Women's rights groups claimed that in most cases it is the victim's immediate relatives who are the killers,
which shows one reason why allowing the victim's relatives to legally forgive a murderer is not necessarily a good idea.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? The jury doesn't decide the sentence. They only decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of the charges laid against them. The judge will then decide an appropriate sentence based on the law that already exists. Look, S.A.M., don't feel that your religion/culture is being attacked here. It is only the crimes of this handful of people that we find abhorrent. Try and keep to a logical, reasoned argument.

I'm only pointing out that they have a different legal system, one that includes the possibility of forgiveness. Meanwhile in India, we abolished the jury system, because we considered it to be a tainted procedure for justice. So its all up to the judges. Thats another kind of system.

Which one works? How do you decide? Is law a system of revenge, justice or social control? Is it a system that the people should be permitted to choose for themselves?

Most people in Pakistan, NWFP etc prefer the jirga system, because they believe that it has worked for them better than all others. Are they allowed to make such decisions on behalf of their own society? Should other societies decide what is right for them?

Democracy is not alien to the genius of the Pukhtoons, as they are carrying on their typical and rudimentary form of government on democratic principles since times immemorial. A unique feature of tribal life is the Jirga system, a council or assembly of tribal elders, which closely resembles the Athenian democracy of the City States of ancient Greece. The Pukhtoons practiced this participatory sort of democracy long before Locke, Rousseau and other eminent philosophers expounded their theories about democracy.

Pukhtoonwali is the code of ethics of the Pukhtoons, the Jirga their Parliament or National Assembly and intrepidity and frankness an essential trait of their character. An atmosphere of equality pervades in tribal area and even a poor man dressed in rags considers himself equal to his adversary or his rich compatriot. This spirit is well reflected in their Jirga system, which, like the ancient Greek democratic institutions signifies their love for democracy.

The Jirga of today also plays an important and constructive role in solving the tribal matters. It is an authority for settling disputes and dispensing even-handed justice to all and sundry irrespective of their social status, influence and wealth. All matters including the question of peace and war within tribal limits fall within the purview of the Jirga. It consists of the leading Maliks and tribal elders. There are no hard and fast rules for the selection of Jirga members. All tribal elders Speen Geeri or (grey-beards) are considered eligible for its membership and each one of them has a right to speak and freely express his opinion. However, Jirga’s generally consist of persons known for their honesty and integrity. The Jirga exercises both executive and judicial roles and settles all disputes pertaining to the distribution of land, property, blood feuds, blood money and other important inter-tribal affairs on the basis of tribal conventions, traditions and principles of justice. It performs judicial functions while settling a dispute and discharges police functions when a threat to peace and tranquility or danger to the life and property exists within tribal limits.

The Jirga usually deals with inter-tribal affairs and serves as an instrument for dispensing speedy and cheap justice. After careful consideration, the Jirga decides the disputes on the basis of available evidence.

The Jirga conducts its proceedings in a simple manner. It interviews both the parties, gives them a patient hearing and examines witnesses to ascertain the facts of the case. After searching enquiries, the Jirga makes every possible endeavour to find an impartial and acceptable solution of the problem. The Jirga's decision is generally based on Shariat, local traditions, and justice and fair play. In serious cases the Jirga asks a party to clear itself of the imputed charge by an oath on the Holy Quran. This seals the issue once for all, as the religion is an extremely strong a force. It announces its decision only when the majority of its members reach an agreement. But Jirga members deem it prudent to obtain the consent of both the parties before making its verdict public. This practice is known as WAAK or IKHTIAR (Power of attorney). It is through the instrument of Waak or Ikhtiar that the Jirga commits both the parties to abide by its decision. The Waak also gives a binding force or some sort of legal cover to the Jirga's verdict and it becomes incumbent upon the parties concerned to honour its verdict.

http://www.khyber.org/culture/pashtoonwalai/jirga.shtml

Now they may have different values and an ideology that is alien to the western world. Does this mean that they should be forced to embrace a system that they do not want?

I do not agree with American policies. Should Americans be forced to embrace mine?
 
Honour killings are a cultural expression of a basic primate instinct, on the part of males, to assert ownership over females, for reproductive purposes. It has bugger all to do with religion (except that religion is usurped to justify the behaviour) so the bulk of the comments in this thread are irrelevant, shallow and pointless.

(Sometimes I wonder if anyone on this forum has a brain.)

Sorry O, honor killings are deeply rooted in Islamic culture. The patriarchal concept of ownership of women is codified in Islam.
 
It is illegal, and punishable by death. If the government doesn't take action, usually wife's family will or provincial courts will. Pakistani moral laws are very strict in this regard.

Don't listen to iceaura, she is racist against Pakistanis, and hates Muslims. It's common for her to say these ridiculous things.

It's the imperialistic and white supremacist attitude which makes people think others need to be civilized. Some people just need an excuse to vent their racial animosities.

Important thing to realize that such a practice is not condoned by any society, Western, Muslim, or whatever. Only uneducated bigots try to make it seem that way.

Here you go, pal, better have a read before mouthing off.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6407774/Pakistan-Penal-Code-PPC
 
Sorry O, honor killings are deeply rooted in Islamic culture. The patriarchal concept of ownership of women is codified in Islam.

Agreed.
When do you think that quit being how it was in the US? I remember watching an episode of Barney Miller in the late 70s where a woman came in to report a rape. They were very sympatheitc and helpful until they found out the rapist was her husband.
 
whats wrong with 15 years? He clearly was swayed mainly by religious wrong guidance.

oh..okay then put his religious leaders in prison with him since they are accessories to the crime and they can all do 15 years
 
Agreed.
When do you think that quit being how it was in the US? I remember watching an episode of Barney Miller in the late 70s where a woman came in to report a rape. They were very sympatheitc and helpful until they found out the rapist was her husband.

Catholicism is also patriarchal, the US Christian masses treat their women very much the same way. I've spoken with born again Christians who would never consider their own wives and daughters as righteous to their god as they are as men.
 
Sorry O, honor killings are deeply rooted in Islamic culture. The patriarchal concept of ownership of women is codified in Islam.
Oh, continue your unending (and quite unedifying) diatriabe against religion in general and Islam in particular. It doesn't alter the fact that the behaviour (and for that matter the religion) are artifacts of human instinctual presdispositions, not the other way round. However, I have come to accept that you often have things the wrong way round - which is probably why you usually talk shit.:)
 
Agreed.
When do you think that quit being how it was in the US? I remember watching an episode of Barney Miller in the late 70s where a woman came in to report a rape. They were very sympatheitc and helpful until they found out the rapist was her husband.

How does the domestic violence in the US compare to other countries?
 
How does the domestic violence in the US compare to other countries?


I don't know. I do know some states will prosecute even if the victim begs them not to. I don't know how many other countries have protection orders as well.
 
How does the domestic violence in the US compare to other countries?

we generally use handguns.. not too many beheading or throwing acid in someones face

But now that we have all those good examples of "Honor" maybe we will get it right... and follow God's methods .. I mean this whole honor thing has something to do with the muslim twisted view of how god wants us to do things right?? :mad:
 
we generally use handguns.. not too many beheading or throwing acid in someones face

But now that we have all those good examples of "Honor" maybe we will get it right... and follow God's methods .. I mean this whole honor thing has something to do with the muslim twisted view of how god wants us to do things right?? :mad:

I think its about Maslow's hierarchy. I recall a study that indicated societies which made more than $6000 a year were more likely to be both politcally and socially progressive. Its called the power of the middle class.
 
???? You have torture prisons, you kill more people than probably any other country [and thats before we even count the murders by invasion] You sell 50% of all arms in the world, support dictators and consider the "price is right" if 500,000 children die of starvation from actions taken by you.

By 'You', I assume you are referring to us godless Americans :rolleyes: This has nothing to do with torture prisons or arms distribution. The OP states a simple question:

Why should this man think he can break the law of the country he resides in and get away with it by claiming it was a religious 'honor' killing?

The veneer of civility is thin in all societies. Its why there is so much noise over one beheading where the man confessed and is charged, but when 500,000 children are killed from preventable causes, no one even musters up an opinion..

I think that's a very wide generalization. The American Media makes noise over anything that sells papers and ratings, even if it means implicating those that run the American government. This is the THIRD beheading in the US that has taken place over this last year. I found this headline interesting because of the defense the accused chose to use.


What was the sentence given?

He has not been sentenced yet. This just happened so he is still waiting to stand trial.


You think everyone should be under one legal system? Sign up for the ICC.:rolleyes:

No S.A.M. I don't think everyone should be under the same legal system, but I do think that you should be subject to the laws and the consequences of breaking them of the country you are a resident of.
 
I'm only pointing out that they have a different legal system, one that includes the possibility of forgiveness. Meanwhile in India, we abolished the jury system, because we considered it to be a tainted procedure for justice. So its all up to the judges. Thats another kind of system.
... Is it a system that the people should be permitted to choose for themselves?

Forgiveness from society or forgiveness from the victim's family? If you are referring to the latter, then you're placing yourself in a minefield.
How can allowing relatives to have influence over the punishment of the killer ever be part of a fair and consistent justice system? After all, aren't the perpetrators of so-called 'Honour Killings' almost always family members? If not, is someone less worthy of punishment because they picked on the girl with the extremist family? Or more so because the victim was dearly loved? It's a logical fallacy.
Whether they are granted forgiveness by relatives or not, this should not affect the legal consequences of their actions.

Which one works? How do you decide? Is law a system of revenge, justice or social control?

In most cultures, the law contains elements of all three - the emphasis on either one differing from country to country.

Most people in Pakistan, NWFP etc prefer the jirga system, because they believe that it has worked for them better than all others. Are they allowed to make such decisions on behalf of their own society? Should other societies decide what is right for them?

Despite the fact there are sometimes slight differences between the moral codes of different cultures, there are some acts that are universally thought of as wrong. Throwing acid in a young girl's face or chopping a woman's head off for something as trivial as refusing to wear a veil or perhaps marrying someone disproved of is, pretty much worldwide, regarded as sick and cruel. It's hardly Western oppression if someone argues that the person responsible for such vile acts is brought to justice. Do you feel that these crimes should not be punished?
 
Are they allowed to make such decisions on behalf of their own society?

No society is entitled to decide to murder or mutilate anyone. The individual rights of the victims outweigh the society's claim to autonomy.

And, yes, a justice system that allows "forgiveness" by the victim's family members, in the context of widespread murders and mutiliations committed by one family member against another, constitutes exactly such a collective decision by the society in question.

Incidentally, there are avenues for legal forgiveness by the victims in the American justice system. It is routine for charges not to be pressed for certain offenses when the victim (or their relatives) do not wish to pursue them. However, the victims and their immediately families are not the only parties with an interest in justice. There is a larger social interest in protecting the rights of citizens, and maintaining the integrity of the justice system, and so the state itself also has standing to pursue justice independent of the wishes of the aggrieved.
 
Back
Top