So if there is no surviving family or if the surviving family is also implicated there is no one to really protect the children?shafique wrote:The surviving family, this report says, generally forgo this punishment.
Great! :/
the message board for Dubai English speaking community
So if there is no surviving family or if the surviving family is also implicated there is no one to really protect the children?shafique wrote:The surviving family, this report says, generally forgo this punishment.
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the Supreme Court repealed the qesas sentences against the six defendants in early 2008 on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.
shafique wrote:The answer is obvious - they deal with violence against women in the UK as their day job.
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.
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.
shafique wrote:Please highlight the bit where it says a relative cannot ask for the death penality for the crime of murdering a child.
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.
shafique wrote:The issue seems to be that the state judiciary is passing over sentence to the family, rather than taking the decision themselves
shafique wrote:This is quite different from arguing that Iranian law condones honour killings.
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
shafique wrote:and of these 1 in 3 are not by Muslims.
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?
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?
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.
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.
shafique wrote:in the US there is evidence of high rates of violence amongst women in Latin American immigrant communities)
shafique wrote:eg in the US there are more black people in jail than white
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.
shafique wrote:Well, if you want to discuss criminality etc in the USA, let's do so in another thread.
shaifque wrote:The experts on the subject cited in this thread all say religion is not a cause.
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.
shafique wrote:A mother or sister or brother carrying out an honour crime gets the full weight of the law
shafique wrote:a father or grandfather carrying out the same murder has the sentencing passed on to the relatives of the victim.
shafique wrote:I fully understand your belief of the connection between Islam and honour killings. I just don't see the evidence.
shafique wrote:. Do you have anyone who isn't an Islamophobic blogger that agrees with this view? If so, please present the evidence.
shafique wrote:As for discussing criminality in the USA etc
shafique wrote:and that the organisation cited in the OP says 1 in 3 of these are carried out by non-Muslims.
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.
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.
Return to Philosophy and Religion Forums