Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:The surviving family, this report says, generally forgo this punishment.

So if there is no surviving family or if the surviving family is also implicated there is no one to really protect the children?
Great! :/

DFT - most penal codes, Iranian or otherwise, would have the state step in and take the place of family in these cases. So in the case of no family, the punishment would actually be decided by the state judiciary.

What is interesting is that the report I found states that the punishment in practice is more lenient where families choose not to punish fathers/grandfathers who murder their child/grandchild - but the law itself does not say that the punishment should be lighter.

I agree with the concern that this is a loophole and that it would be better if the state judiciary applied the punishments for murder.

eh - we have the experts saying 1 in 3 of honour killings in the UK are not by Muslims. The same experts quoted in the OP. You question where they got this information from. The answer is obvious - they deal with violence against women in the UK as their day job.

What is fascinating though, is that you should have questioned Dillon for his belief that 'almost all' honour killings in the UK are by Muslims. The question should rather be where did Dillon derive this belief from. That is the question I asked and the question he has refused to answer by giving us a source.

So, a pattern emerges. When experts contradict Islamophobe bloggers - you question their information. When people just state their beliefs, without any reference, no comment is made by you.

Cheers,

Shafique

Impunity for certain murderers: Even though it is not expressly stated, the IPC does not
treat all murderers equally. Murder may be retaliated only if the victim did not deserve to die
under the provisions of the shari’a (Article 226). This provision has been further underlined
in Article 295 (Note 2), which reprieves people who “kill someone in the belief that they
are enforcing retaliation or if the murdered person is a person whose blood deserves to be
wasted50...” This killing with impunity provision has given room to fanatic extremists to take
the law in their own hands. In March 2003, six members of the paramilitary Baseej51 organisation
were arrested in the southeastern city of Kerman and charged with killing two women
and three men, amidst reports that a total of 18 people had been killed by similar methods
throughout the preceding year. After a lengthy process involving several trials, Branch 31 of
the Supreme Court repealed the qesas sentences against the six defendants in early 2008 on
the grounds that “they believed the victims deserved to have their blood wasted, they [the
murderers] were members of families of martyrs… and had offered evidence to substantiate
their belief in court.52”

While killing with impunity may be resorted to in cases of legitimate defence (Article 629),
victims of the Kerman murders were killed on the grounds that they had allegedly committed
vice. By implication, the notion of killing with impunity may also be employed to kill anybody
‘deserving’ a retaliatory death penalty. The IPC, for example, expressly provides for impunity
of the killer of adulterers. “A husband who sees his wife committing adultery with another
man may kill both of them in that position, if he is sure that the woman has consented; if the
woman is reluctant, he may kill the man only…” (Article 630)....

However, under the patriarchal provisions of the IPC, “a father
(or paternal grandfather) who kills his child” (or grandchild) “will not be sentenced to qesas
but to payment of diyeh [compensation] to survivors of the victim and ta’zir [discretionary
punishment]” (Article 220). Survivors of the victim, i.e. the mother if the father is the killer
(or parents, if the grandfather is the killer), generally forgo the demand for punishment.

p15-16

1) Honor murders are completely condoned under Iranian at least in cases of adultery and most probably for numerous other scenarios where a person is "deserving a retaliatory death penalty" or a "mahdur ud-dam" - someone whose blood can be wasted, such as family members accused of committing apostasy or perhaps for less "serious crimes".

2) Ta'zir punishments, as explained in the article, with the exception of one incident of someone being found guilty of cursing prophet Muhammad, *DO NOT* carry the death penalty in Iran. So, fathers found guilty of murdering their children by default will not face the death penalty. They can be fined and receive a sentence from a judge (qadi) only if the family of the father (and murder victim) do not plead for forgiveness, which would set the father free from having to experience any punishment.

Not only does Islamic Law in Iran condone honor killings in cases of "mahdur ud-dam", but fathers are automatically sheltered from the death penalty and like all honor killers, will often receive no punishment even if the family member they murdered was not a "mahdur ud-dam".

shafique wrote:The answer is obvious - they deal with violence against women in the UK as their day job.

So they have the statistics because they work as social workers?

Wow. Are all social workers equipped with stats as they are?

Since the groups were using police records to discuss the number of honor crimes and speculated that the numbers is actually much higher, I'm curious then how they knew about the religious breakdown of the honor crimes if there are is no data of this kind available nor do these groups appear to have compiled any data of their own.

Btw, were you having trouble with any of my bullet points connecting Islam with honor killings?

Iranian Islamic Law seems like the clincher to me.

It couldn't get any clearer than that - Islamic Law in Iran condones honor killings for specific reasons - adultery, most likely apostasy, perhaps pre-marital relations, etc., etc but also shields fathers from harsher penalties of Islamic law for killing their children.

Wow.

Sorry eh - where does the article state that Ta'zir punishents do not include the death penalty? Yor exception shows that it does allow for death penalties.

As I stated, the problem seems to be that in practice these discretionary punishments are being used a loophole to let murderers not face punishment.

But, my understanding, is that Iranian law (and Shariah in general) allows even non-Tazir convicted murderers to be forgiven by the victim's family and receive lesser punishments - even being set free. So the only difference (as far as I can see) is that in these cases the state gives the punishment sentencing authority to the family rather than the judiciary - in other cases the judiciary set the sentence.

Please highlight the bit where it says a relative cannot ask for the death penalty for the crime of murdering a child. (I may have missed it). If Iranian law is the clincher for you, then you better make sure you have been misled (again) by Islamophobic bloggers. Please show me where the article says that the death penalty can't be asked for for the murders of children by fathers/grandfathers.

And as for the UK stats - yes, the organisation that BM quoted in the OP (and no one questioned their authority to quote statistics then) by virtue of their job can indeed quote with authority on the proportion of honour crimes in the UK being carried out by non-Muslims. Certainly they have more authority than Dillon just stating his belief.

Cheers,
Shafique

In the beginning, try to read the article. The exception, since 1979, was that one person was sentenced to death in Iran under a Ta'zir punishment - and that was for insulting prophet Muhammad, not a father killing his child, regardless of his child being a "mahdur ud-dam".

shafique wrote:As I stated, the problem seems to be that in practice these discretionary punishments are being used a loophole to let murderers not face punishment.

Both in practice and in law as the article states. The practice merely shields fathers from any discretionary punishment from a judge. The judge, however, cannot sentence the qisas, so the father is immune from a death penalty.

shafique wrote:But, my understanding, is that Iranian law (and Shariah in general) allows even non-Tazir convicted murderers to be forgiven by the victim's family and receive lesser punishments - even being set free.

I see you didn't read the article. Moharebehs under Iranian law are not subject to forgiveness. Those found guilty are sentenced to death or other punishments determined by the judge.

shafique wrote:Please highlight the bit where it says a relative cannot ask for the death penality for the crime of murdering a child.

Read the beginning of the article where Ta'zeer punishments in Iran are not liable to the death penalty - at least not for a father murdering his child, though cursing the prophet may carry the death penalty.

Btw, forgeting about "mahdur ud-dam" and family members killing their wife/children over suspicion of adultery or other actions where their blood deserves to be wasted?

shafique"Please highlight the bit where it says a relative cannot ask for the death penalty for the crime of murdering a child.[/quote]

The part where it says fathers are not subject to qisas. It is only qisas where a family can either request a specific punishment or for forgiveness.

So, the family would not be able to seek the death penalty for crimes that would fall under the category of Ta'zir, which is a punishment solely at the discretion of the judge.

[quote="shafique wrote:Certainly they have more authority than Dillon just stating his belief.

Ah, I see your logic is back at work. Not long ago you dismissed Dillon's quote from detectives regarding child grooming being largely carried out by Asian men. Now we're to take it social workers compile statistics on religion of the perpetrators but police officers on child grooming cases don't know what they're talking about.

Got it.

I did read from the beginning. The article states that in practice the death penalty is not being asked for, not that they can't ask for it.

The issue seems to be that the state judiciary is passing over sentencing to the family, rather than taking the decision themselves.

This is quite different from arguing that Iranian law condones honour killings.

Is this not just another case of where a blogger has spun a piece of info to fit an Islamophobic viewpoint? But I'm glad that you've said that this Iranian law is the clincher for you. That speaks volumes.



Anyway, let's not lose sight of the point that in the UK 3 million acts of violence against women, of which less than 1% are honour crimes, and of these 1 in 3 are not by Muslims. The attempt to blame Islam has failed spectacularly - as I said, when you look into the claims of Islamophobic bloggers, you find reality is very different from their spin. In this case Iranian law supposedly condoning honour killings.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:The issue seems to be that the state judiciary is passing over sentence to the family, rather than taking the decision themselves

You apparently have not read the article very well. Only the judge can pass punishment on the father, families can only seek a pardon.

What part of the article where this was explained didn't you understand?

Ta'zir = punishment as decided solely by the judge

Is that confusing?

shafique wrote:This is quite different from arguing that Iranian law condones honour killings.

More reading mishaps?

Or did you not read the article where husbands may kill their wives for adultery?

The IPC, for example, expressly provides for impunity
of the killer of adulterers. “A husband who sees his wife committing adultery with another
man may kill both of them in that position, if he is sure that the woman has consented

Reading comprehension is a work in progress for you.

shafique wrote:and of these 1 in 3 are not by Muslims.

Aha. Assuming these stats are accurate, that means Muslims in the UK, who make up 2-5% of the population, carry out 66% of honor killings.

Thanks for pointing this out.

You've failed to show that the law does not allow for the death penalty where a father or grandfather commit the murder.

In the case of a brother, sister or mother (or other relative) carrying out the murder - there is no loophole in the sentencing is there?

Hasn't your whole argument that Islam condones honour crimes now vanished? You were relying on Iran's penal system, weren't you?



As for your statistics in your last paragraph - let me correct the obvious mistake. Less than 0.66% of violent crimes against women in the UK are as a result of Muslims carrying out honour crimes. 1 out of 3 honour crimes in the UK are carried out by non-Muslims.

Now compare the 0.66% against 2% to 5% of the population of the UK who are Muslim. Which is higher 0.66% or 5%?



Cheers,

Shafique

Funny, I was away for a while, I am back, and I read the same rants from shafique, word to word.

I know that statistics and evidence can easily confuse some people - but I suspect that caps hasn't even read the recent posts. If he had, he'd have discovered that eh's whole argument about Iranian laws against honour killings has crumbled.

Caps - I wasn't asking you whether 0.66% was greater that 5% - so relax.



Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:In the case of a brother, sister or mother (or other relative) carrying out the murder - there is no loophole in the sentencing is there?

It is if the family member they murder is a "mahdur ud-dam". You should read the article instead of claiming you have read it.

Husbands are also legally allowed to murder their wives in honor killings if the wife commits adultery.

shafique wrote:Hasn't your whole argument that Islam condones honour crimes now vanished? You were relying on Iran's penal system, weren't you?

Uh, no. I can't help if you fail to understand the conversation.

shafique wrote:Less than 0.66% of violent crimes against women in the UK are as a result of Muslims carrying out honour crimes. 1 out of 3 honour crimes in the UK are carried out by non-Muslims.

66% of honor crimes are carried out by Muslims in the UK. Other forms of domestic violence and crimes against women by Muslims are classified under separate categories if they do not fit an honor crime - such as wife beating, sanctioned in the Koran and where in Muslim societies abuse is typical.

Regardless of the country where muslums live (in the free world), they are much more likely to end up as criminals.

Statistics show that the percentage of incarcerated muslums is ALWAYS higher than the percentage of muslums living in that country.

In the US for instance, muslums make 1 or 2 % of the population, but 7.2% of the prison population is muslum.

herve - actually, the evidence as presented in this thread on pg9 shows that when it comes to the crimes of violence against women, British Asians have a lower level of incidence of violence against women. There are at least 3 million in the UK alone, including one rape every 9 minutes.

(Note this is in the UK context of asian immigrant communities - in the US there is evidence of high rates of violence amongst women in Latin American immigrant communities)

There are indeed racial differences in the criminal populations of many countries. You also need to factor in social achievements as in most countries that is a stronger indication of criminality - eg in the US there are more black people in jail than white, but factor in social class and you'll find (unsurprisingly) that criminality is more closely associated with affluence - i.e. poorer people are more likely to be criminals, black people are more likely to be poor.. ergo more black people in jail.

Now look at the Muslim population in US jails and factor in race and poverty and you'll get to see whether religion is the deciding factor. Also, the numbers of converts in US jails is interesting - the numbers converting are interesting, so you need to remove the numbers who were criminals before converting to Islam from your %.



Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:the evidence as presented in this thread on pg9 shows that when it comes to the crimes of violence against women, British Asians have a lower level of incidence of violence against women.

You should try being truthful. There are fewer reported incidents of violence against Asian women than the national average. There's a difference from what you claimed and what pg9 actually says.

shafique wrote:in the US there is evidence of high rates of violence amongst women in Latin American immigrant communities)

Interesting, you could be right. But do you have figures for your claim?

shafique wrote:eg in the US there are more black people in jail than white

Yet there are more poor whites than blacks, so there should still be more whites in prison than blacks if you believe social factors are the primary cause of criminality.

eh, you really are struggling with comprehension aren't you? The quote on pg9 of this thread does say that the incidents of violence against women in the British Asian community is lower than the national average - i.e. lower than the overall average rate.

As for incidents of violence in Latin American immigrant communities - just do a Google search and you'll find the research in the subject.

Your last question sounds like you believe race is a primary cause of criminality - more than social factors. May I ask what research you did to come up with this view. I suspect it's just your tea-party beliefs coming to the surface.

Cheers,

Shafique

The quote on pg9 of this thread does say that the incidents of violence against women in the British Asian community is lower than the national average - i.e. lower than the overall average rate.

Funny, I didn't dispute that.

As for incidents of violence in Latin American immigrant communities - just do a Google search and you'll find the research in the subject.

Nope, you made the claim, you support it.

Your last question sounds like you believe race is a primary cause of criminality - more than social factors.

I don't recall suggesting a cause for criminality in my last post. I encourage you to go back and highlight the part of my post where you think I made any suggestion for criminality. I'm guessing you're playing the race card and making fictitious statements of other posters after losing an argument.

My last point sounds more like I poured cold water over your comments on poverty and prison rates. I'm actually not aware of a correlation between violent crime and poverty, but if there is one, it doesn't explain why US prisons have more black than white inmates when there are more poor whites in the US than blacks.

Since you can't address the fact that there are more poor whites in the US than blacks - blowing your view out of the water, then I suppose you're only left with racist smear allegations.

Just try to stay on topic this time - the facts are that there are more poor whites than blacks in the US but fewer whites in prison than blacks.

Facts vs loon beliefs.

Sorry, I didn't actually see any facts in your post. Were you really referring to your statements as 'loon beliefs'?

This thread is actually about a supposed increase in honour killings in the UK, and the original article talks about 2,823 honour crimes in the UK - and does not talk about the religion of the criminals.

The facts show that 3 million violent crimes against women in the UK, and the same organisation that produced the stats in the OP say that 1 in 3 honour crimes are carried out by non-Muslims.

Those that are arguing that religion is responsible for the honour crimes have not provided any experts to back up their views. I have seen that there are indeed Islamophobic bloggers who agree with them, but so far no real experts.



As for discussing your right-wing theories over criminality and the US jail population, I'll be happy to indulge you in a separate thread. Just bring your evidence, and do at least some research.

Cheers,

Shafique

Sorry, I haven't provided any theories over criminality. I suppose this is why you did not do as I requested and highlight which part of my previous post where you think I suggested a cause for criminality but instead repeated your lie.

As for the connection to Islam and honor killings, I made a convenient bullet pointed list of arguments showing a connection.

Among them are honor killings being condoned in Islamic nations, such as Iran, where husbands have a legal right to murder their adulterous wives or where the punishments for family members who murder their relatives for "sinful" behavior is condoned.

I take no issue with your statistic - so far with out an official source - that a tiny minority carries out a majority of honor crimes in the UK. That actually proves one of the points I was making in drawing a connection between Islam and honor killings.

Well, if you want to discuss criminality etc in the USA, let's do so in another thread.

As for your (and herve) theory that Islam is a cause of honour killings - I repeat that I've only seen this theory supported by some Islamophobic bloggers. The experts on the subject cited in this thread all say religion is not a cause.

It is a mighty stretch to give us your interpretation of Iranian law and then use that to support your view that Islam condones honour killings. A mother or sister or brother carrying out an honour crime gets the full weight of the law, a father or grandfather carrying out the same murder has the sentencing passed on to the relatives of the victim.

I fully understand your belief of the connection between Islam and honour killings. I just don't see the evidence.



Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:Well, if you want to discuss criminality etc in the USA, let's do so in another thread.

Interesting that you brought up criminality but now don't want to discuss it.

You should note the fact that I don't want to discuss criminality but your lie concerning your claim that I proposed theories on the causes of criminality.

So, again, where did I propose a cause for criminality in my original response to your comments on the US's black prison population?

shaifque wrote:The experts on the subject cited in this thread all say religion is not a cause.

The experts I've seen all say the primary terrorist threat to the US and EU is Islamic terrorism.

But anyways, my bullet pointed list has not been addressed, either from yourself or the experts.

shafique wrote:It is a mighty stretch to give us your interpretation of Iranian law and then use that to support your view that Islam condones honour killings.

Iranian law is based on Islam. Therefore, it is not a stretch that Islam condones honor crimes if that is part of Iranian law.

shafique wrote:A mother or sister or brother carrying out an honour crime gets the full weight of the law

No, not for many honor crimes where the victim would be a "mahdur ud-dam".

shafique wrote:a father or grandfather carrying out the same murder has the sentencing passed on to the relatives of the victim.

Once again, fathers are sentenced under Taz'ir section of Iran's penal system. Try reading the article to learn that only judges sentence people for Taz'ir crimes, although families may pardon the accused, they have no role in the sentencing.

shafique wrote:I fully understand your belief of the connection between Islam and honour killings. I just don't see the evidence.

That's means very little from someone who is functionally illiterate.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs again. I continue to await any expert that agrees with you and herve that Islam is responsible for honour killings. Do you have anyone who isn't an Islamophobic blogger that agrees with this view? If so, please present the evidence.

As for discussing criminality in the USA etc - as I said before, I'll be happy to compare your views with the evidence - just start a new thread and then lets see whose views are based on facts.

In the mean time, the fact still remains that in the UK honour crimes represent less than 1% of violent crimes against women (3 million a year in total) and that the organisation cited in the OP says 1 in 3 of these are carried out by non-Muslims. Experts quoted have said these crimes are not condoned by any religions. Some Islamophobic bloggers want to believe otherwise. I'll stick to facts.

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:. Do you have anyone who isn't an Islamophobic blogger that agrees with this view? If so, please present the evidence.

You want to believe the hype that Islam does not condone honor killings but the evidence cannot be disputed.

I can't make this any clearer to you, I believe the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on Islamic law, condones honor killings - where husbands may legally murder their adulterous wives and where family members receive different and less severe forms of Iran's system of justice if the family members they honor killed were "mahdur ud-dam".

There's no disputing these facts and the article makes them very clear.

Do you have any more comments on the Iranian legal system condoning honor crimes or any of the other bullet points you keep avoiding?

shafique wrote:As for discussing criminality in the USA etc

I'm asking you to back up your claim that I proposed any theory on criminality in my first response to your initial point on criminality in the US.

You lied and I'm asking you to acknowledge your lie and retract your statement.

Where did I propose any theory on criminality in the US anywhere in this thread?

shafique wrote:and that the organisation cited in the OP says 1 in 3 of these are carried out by non-Muslims.

So less than 5% of the population carries out 66% of honor crimes? Again, thanks for reinforcing the point that there must be some aspect of Islam to account for the fact Muslims carry out far more honor crimes than their numbers in the general population.

Less that 5% of the UK population carry out less than 0.6% of the violent crimes against women (3 million a year) that represent honour killings. Yes.

But the stats on how many crimes against women in the UK is one thing, your theory that Islam is behind the 0.6% of the crimes is one you have yet to prove. It appears that only Islamophobic bloggers agree with your linkage.

Cheers,

Shafique

2,823 incidents of Honour Crime in 2010 resulting a 47% increase in just 12 Months in the UK alone, the perpetrators overwhelmingly muslum.

herve - did you manage to find out how many of the 2,823 incidents were committed by Muslims? How about the number of Muslims in the 3 million total crimes against women in the UK - of which therefor honour crimes are less than 1% of the total?

The original article does not mention Muslims or any other religion at all. The same organisation that did provide the stats say that 1 in 3 honour crimes in the UK are not carried out by Muslims, and doesn't agree with you that Islam is to blame. Only Islamophobic bloggers seem to share your theory.



Cheers,

Shafique

We aren't debating the total crimes against women in the UK, but the total number of honour crimes recorded in the UK and the fact that they have increased by 47% in one year alone.

The UK press is not allowed to state the religion of the perpetrators. When the report was discussed on the BBC, the only people who were interviewed concerning this worrying statistic were Muslim MPs and Muslim womens groups.

This would point a normal thinking person to believe that it's a problem within the Muslim community. That's unless you think it's a press conspiracy of course.

shafique wrote:Less that 5% of the UK population carry out less than 0.6% of the violent crimes against women (3 million a year) that represent honour killings. Yes.

Now you're simply lying.

The 3,000 incidents of honor crimes are simply that. They don't refer to all incidents of violence against women by the Muslim community or any other. I also assume honor violence numbers could include violence against children since Muslims unlike other faith groups extend their honor crimes to all members of a family.

shafique wrote:But the stats on how many crimes against women in the UK is one thing, your theory that Islam is behind the 0.6% of the crimes is one you have yet to prove.

You probably should address my bullet points a few pages ago.

It appears I've found your clerics who agree honor crimes are Islamic - it's actually the LAW in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Husbands may legally murder their wives, family members who honor kill their other family members for alleged sins they are accused of committing receive special treatment from the judiciary.

The qadis, clerics, mullahs, jurists and doctors of Islamic law are all present in Iran and perform a function in the passing and enforcement of this law.

There are 3 million plus acts of violence against women in the UK, of which less than 1% constitute these honour crimes. Of these 1 in 3 are carried out by non-Muslims.

No expert you've quoted agrees with you that Islam is linked to the 0.6% of crimes against women in the UK. On the contrary experts clearly state that religion does not condone these crimes.

Iranian law doesn't help you - especially when it appears you were relying on headlines rather than the details. This thread is about the UK and an article which does not cite Muslims/Islam or any other religion.

Cheers,

Shafique

Accusing someone else of relying on headlines when the accuser was informed and corrected of his mistaken beliefs is a bit rich.

The fact is that, as the article points out, husbands may legally murder their adulterous wives and family members honor killing their relatives over alleged sinful behaviors, especially if they carry the death penalty in Iran, are tried under a different section of Islamic penal code, one that is more lenient. And that is what the article makes clear.

The article in question does not mention Islam/Muslims or any other religion. Only Islamophobic bloggers seem to be the ones who share this belief of yours that Islam is the reason. Your problem is that the same organisation states that 1 in 3 honour crimes in the UK are carried out by non-Muslims.

Specious references to Iranian penal codes won't help you explain that away.

Perhaps you should spend more time finding at least one real expert who believes in what the Islamophobic bloggers are telling you. It may save you from further embarrassment. I mean Islamophobic blogs made an explicit reference to the Iranian penal code - and when we looked into it, we found that it wasn't as they said.

But pray tell, what has Iranian law (and your interpretation of it) got to do with the UK honour crimes - especially the 1 in 3 by non-Muslims? I presume you agree it has nothing to do with the 99% of the 3 million violent crimes against women in the UK which aren't honour crimes?

Cheers,

Shafique