Death of Aqsa Pervez: A reflection on Canadian Muslim-Pakistanis
Nauman Mir December 16, 2007
#26 Posted by mohar11 on December 19, 2007 9:18:48 am
zee
Laddu has a point... you pakis are just too caught-up in this "shame" business... "shame" is bedouin culture - it's NOT your culture... your culture is hanood culture - where cowboy Lord Krishna gets his enlightenment by playing footsie with "uncovered" girls on banks of beautiful Jamuna...
Get back to your roots... this nonsense has gone too far... :)
Laddu has a point... you pakis are just too caught-up in this "shame" business... "shame" is bedouin culture - it's NOT your culture... your culture is hanood culture - where cowboy Lord Krishna gets his enlightenment by playing footsie with "uncovered" girls on banks of beautiful Jamuna...
Get back to your roots... this nonsense has gone too far... :)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#25 Posted by laddu on December 19, 2007 9:08:41 am
Re: # 24
Miyan Zee,
Truth hurts! I know you also feel the same "shame" when your women go around 'uncovered'. It is certainly difficult to get over with the sense of shame that Islam puts in momeens.
Miyan Zee,
Truth hurts! I know you also feel the same "shame" when your women go around 'uncovered'. It is certainly difficult to get over with the sense of shame that Islam puts in momeens.
#24 Posted by zeemax on December 19, 2007 5:43:57 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#23 Posted by laddu on December 19, 2007 4:38:58 am
On 11th of December, in Mississauga Canada, Aqsa, a 16 year old Canadian girl was choked to death by her Pakistani father, Muhammad Parvez, for not wearing hijab. “She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to, not the way her parents wanted her to,” her classmates told the reporters. “She just wanted to be herself, honestly she just wanted to show her beauty, and not be pushed around by her parents telling her what she has to be like, what she has to do. Nobody would want to do that.”
Yes, nobody would want to do that, but sadly many girls born in Islamic families are forced to do that.
One day after the death of Aqsa, I received an email from an 18 year old girl from UK. She said that she has been reading about Islam and had decided not to be a Muslim. However, her Muslim parents force her to wear hijab and her sister told her that if their mother learns about her views, “she would either kill you or she’ll kill herself”.
I sent her the story of Aqsa and what her father did to her. She wrote back and said, “What an animal! Anyways, I don’t think my mom cares about my beliefs, as long as I don’t have a boy friend, [and don’t] take off my hijaab.”
The truth is that Aqsa’s father was not an animal either. He was just a devout Muslim, who had worked hard and had built a nice home for his family in an upscale neighborhood. He was an ideal immigrant, a real “success story.” However, he had no choice but to kill his daughter. He did what he had to do. As one friend wrote, “In a way there are two victims in this case. This man like any other father must have loved, nurtured and cared for his daughter for years. It is so unfortunate that he finds himself turned into a monster that ate his own progeny.” Then this friend asked “What kind of ideology was it that turned a simple hard working family man into a revolting image of himself?”
What the westerners do not understand is that Muslims have different values, which are diametrically in contrast with western values. Western societies are guilt based. In guilt based societies individuals base their conduct on “right” and “wrong”. They try to do the right thing and if they do something wrong, they feel guilty. Muslim societies are shame based. In shame based societies individuals base their conduct on the opinion of others about them. What really counts is to look good. In shame cultures, if you do something wrong, as long as no one sees it and knows about it, you are okay. You can still keep your head high and act as an honorable member of the society. It is the image that you project of yourself that matters. You must do everything to protect that image. It is all about keeping the appearances.
In guilt societies, how you dress or don’t dress is your business. You can practice nudity and even promiscuity and have no shame. As long as you don’t violate someone else’s rights you can do whatever you like. Such a thing is inconceivable for Muslims who come from shame societies where everybody's life is the business of everybody else. This makes the western and Islamic cultures essentially incompatible. If this problem is not resolved soon, it will result is a major clash and dire consequences.
In a subsequent email my young British friend wrote, “My mom has noticed a change in me, ..and she said today, ‘I hope you haven’t done anything because so an so aunt will laugh.' Jesus! Who cares about so and so aunt who doesn’t even care about us?”
This is the crux of the problem. In Islamic societies people live in function of the opinion of others about them. That is the only thing that really matters to them. Muhammad Parvez was devastated by the fact that her 16 year old daughter wanted to dress like her classmates and show off her beauty. How could he look into the eyes of his Muslim friends with such a daughter? Muslims call western women “sluts” for not covering themselves. For Mr. Parvez his daughter’s western clothing was a major source of shame and dishonor. He had no choice but to kill her. There is hardly anything for which we humans are willing to die for, or kill, like our honor. This is far truer in shame based societies, where guilt plays virtually no role and everything revolves around shame and honor.
Millions of girls living in Muslim families in the west are abused, beaten and face death by their own loved ones because of honor. Don’t assume that these girls are the only victims. Their families are also victims. They are left with no choice, but to kill the apple of their own eyes. Everyone in these tragedies is a victim. It’s the government that is guilty!
The government is guilty for letting down its Muslim citizens and particularly its most vulnerable members, the Muslim girls. There was no need for Aqsa to die. If hijab was baned she would be alive today. If hijab is banned, no Muslim can look down at other Muslims for not observing it and no one will have to feel shame. Muslims hardy wear hijab or observe any Islamic custom when they live in places where there are few Muslims. They start behaving Islamicly when they congregate together and build their shame based communities.
The 20th century Pahlavi ruler, Reza Shah, knew how to handle this problem. He banned the chador (Iranian style of veil) in 1936. He ordered the police to arrest woman wearing chador and forcibly remove it. Although this policy outraged the mullahs, the average Iranians were relieved. The ban allowed them to be free without having to deal with the burden of shame. The historian Mir-Hosseini writes, “this move was welcomed by Westernized and upperclass men and women, who saw it in liberal terms as a first step in granting women their rights." She continues, 'between 1941 and 1979 wearing hejab [hijab] was no longer an offence, but it was a real hindrance to climbing the social ladder, a badge of backwardness and a marker of class. A headscarf, let alone the chador, prejudiced the chances of advancement in work and society not only of working women but also of men, who were increasingly expected to appear with their wives at social functions. Fashionable hotels and restaurants refused to admit women with chador, schools and universities actively discouraged the chador, although the headscarf was tolerated. It was common to see girls from traditional families, who had to leave home with the chador, arriving at school without it and then putting it on again on the way home'." (cited in El-Guindi 1999 pp. 174-175)
Despite his flaws, Reza Shah is hailed as the father of modern Persia by many Iranians because he banned the hijab. He was a Muslim and was keenly aware of the Muslim mind. He knew that only with the fist of the law Muslims can be rescued from their backward customs. He broke down the power and prestige of the clergy, discarded the Islamic law, closed down Islamic madrassahs, forbade religious processions, and replaced the Islamic calendar with the old Persian-Zoroastrian solar calendar. He prohibited the Islamic call to prayer and discouraged the pilgrimage to Mecca. He even forced the mullahs to shave, take off their robe and engage in honorable professions. The majority of Iranians welcomed his reforms. He was seen as a liberator. He set Iran free from the oppression of the culture of shame. It is this shame that inhibits Muslims to take the first step and stand out of the crowd. It is because of this shame that no reform can ever happen in Islamic societies unless it is imposed on them by force.
Western governments have a duty towards their Muslim citizens and particularly their women that traditionally have been the most disadvantaged members of Islamic societies. If hijab was banned in Canada Aqsa would be alive today and a hard working good father would not have had to choose between his daughter and his honor. The government failed both Aqsa and her father.
There are millions of Muslim families in western countries who share Parvezs' predicament. The girls in these families are under greater pressure and bigger danger than those living in Islamic countries. In Islamic countries everyone wears the same clothing. It is much easier for Muslim girls to conform and comply there than in the West where they are forced to be different. The government owes these girls protection.
Aqsa is dead. Her beauty will be devoured by a cold grave. That bud was nipped before blossoming. Will we let her death go in vain or will we ban hijab and set millions of Muslims free in her memory?
We must ban hijab, save innocent lives, end this abuse, and absolve the poor Muslim parents from having to make such difficult choices. Muslim parents are not animals. They are torn apart between the love of their children and their honor. Only the government can take that burden away. The only people who would not welcome this ban will be the mullahs who will see their power reduced. The average Muslims will be grateful and relieved, even though to keep the image of faithful believers, may publicly oppose the decision. .
Now that Muslims are living in the West in such a large numbers, politicians must make an extra effort to understand the Muslim mind. Only the hand of law can put an end to this culture of shame and help Muslims to integrate. If we let this division stand, a clash between Islam and the West will become inevitable. This means civil war.
Yes, nobody would want to do that, but sadly many girls born in Islamic families are forced to do that.
One day after the death of Aqsa, I received an email from an 18 year old girl from UK. She said that she has been reading about Islam and had decided not to be a Muslim. However, her Muslim parents force her to wear hijab and her sister told her that if their mother learns about her views, “she would either kill you or she’ll kill herself”.
I sent her the story of Aqsa and what her father did to her. She wrote back and said, “What an animal! Anyways, I don’t think my mom cares about my beliefs, as long as I don’t have a boy friend, [and don’t] take off my hijaab.”
The truth is that Aqsa’s father was not an animal either. He was just a devout Muslim, who had worked hard and had built a nice home for his family in an upscale neighborhood. He was an ideal immigrant, a real “success story.” However, he had no choice but to kill his daughter. He did what he had to do. As one friend wrote, “In a way there are two victims in this case. This man like any other father must have loved, nurtured and cared for his daughter for years. It is so unfortunate that he finds himself turned into a monster that ate his own progeny.” Then this friend asked “What kind of ideology was it that turned a simple hard working family man into a revolting image of himself?”
What the westerners do not understand is that Muslims have different values, which are diametrically in contrast with western values. Western societies are guilt based. In guilt based societies individuals base their conduct on “right” and “wrong”. They try to do the right thing and if they do something wrong, they feel guilty. Muslim societies are shame based. In shame based societies individuals base their conduct on the opinion of others about them. What really counts is to look good. In shame cultures, if you do something wrong, as long as no one sees it and knows about it, you are okay. You can still keep your head high and act as an honorable member of the society. It is the image that you project of yourself that matters. You must do everything to protect that image. It is all about keeping the appearances.
In guilt societies, how you dress or don’t dress is your business. You can practice nudity and even promiscuity and have no shame. As long as you don’t violate someone else’s rights you can do whatever you like. Such a thing is inconceivable for Muslims who come from shame societies where everybody's life is the business of everybody else. This makes the western and Islamic cultures essentially incompatible. If this problem is not resolved soon, it will result is a major clash and dire consequences.
In a subsequent email my young British friend wrote, “My mom has noticed a change in me, ..and she said today, ‘I hope you haven’t done anything because so an so aunt will laugh.' Jesus! Who cares about so and so aunt who doesn’t even care about us?”
This is the crux of the problem. In Islamic societies people live in function of the opinion of others about them. That is the only thing that really matters to them. Muhammad Parvez was devastated by the fact that her 16 year old daughter wanted to dress like her classmates and show off her beauty. How could he look into the eyes of his Muslim friends with such a daughter? Muslims call western women “sluts” for not covering themselves. For Mr. Parvez his daughter’s western clothing was a major source of shame and dishonor. He had no choice but to kill her. There is hardly anything for which we humans are willing to die for, or kill, like our honor. This is far truer in shame based societies, where guilt plays virtually no role and everything revolves around shame and honor.
Millions of girls living in Muslim families in the west are abused, beaten and face death by their own loved ones because of honor. Don’t assume that these girls are the only victims. Their families are also victims. They are left with no choice, but to kill the apple of their own eyes. Everyone in these tragedies is a victim. It’s the government that is guilty!
The government is guilty for letting down its Muslim citizens and particularly its most vulnerable members, the Muslim girls. There was no need for Aqsa to die. If hijab was baned she would be alive today. If hijab is banned, no Muslim can look down at other Muslims for not observing it and no one will have to feel shame. Muslims hardy wear hijab or observe any Islamic custom when they live in places where there are few Muslims. They start behaving Islamicly when they congregate together and build their shame based communities.
The 20th century Pahlavi ruler, Reza Shah, knew how to handle this problem. He banned the chador (Iranian style of veil) in 1936. He ordered the police to arrest woman wearing chador and forcibly remove it. Although this policy outraged the mullahs, the average Iranians were relieved. The ban allowed them to be free without having to deal with the burden of shame. The historian Mir-Hosseini writes, “this move was welcomed by Westernized and upperclass men and women, who saw it in liberal terms as a first step in granting women their rights." She continues, 'between 1941 and 1979 wearing hejab [hijab] was no longer an offence, but it was a real hindrance to climbing the social ladder, a badge of backwardness and a marker of class. A headscarf, let alone the chador, prejudiced the chances of advancement in work and society not only of working women but also of men, who were increasingly expected to appear with their wives at social functions. Fashionable hotels and restaurants refused to admit women with chador, schools and universities actively discouraged the chador, although the headscarf was tolerated. It was common to see girls from traditional families, who had to leave home with the chador, arriving at school without it and then putting it on again on the way home'." (cited in El-Guindi 1999 pp. 174-175)
Despite his flaws, Reza Shah is hailed as the father of modern Persia by many Iranians because he banned the hijab. He was a Muslim and was keenly aware of the Muslim mind. He knew that only with the fist of the law Muslims can be rescued from their backward customs. He broke down the power and prestige of the clergy, discarded the Islamic law, closed down Islamic madrassahs, forbade religious processions, and replaced the Islamic calendar with the old Persian-Zoroastrian solar calendar. He prohibited the Islamic call to prayer and discouraged the pilgrimage to Mecca. He even forced the mullahs to shave, take off their robe and engage in honorable professions. The majority of Iranians welcomed his reforms. He was seen as a liberator. He set Iran free from the oppression of the culture of shame. It is this shame that inhibits Muslims to take the first step and stand out of the crowd. It is because of this shame that no reform can ever happen in Islamic societies unless it is imposed on them by force.
Western governments have a duty towards their Muslim citizens and particularly their women that traditionally have been the most disadvantaged members of Islamic societies. If hijab was banned in Canada Aqsa would be alive today and a hard working good father would not have had to choose between his daughter and his honor. The government failed both Aqsa and her father.
There are millions of Muslim families in western countries who share Parvezs' predicament. The girls in these families are under greater pressure and bigger danger than those living in Islamic countries. In Islamic countries everyone wears the same clothing. It is much easier for Muslim girls to conform and comply there than in the West where they are forced to be different. The government owes these girls protection.
Aqsa is dead. Her beauty will be devoured by a cold grave. That bud was nipped before blossoming. Will we let her death go in vain or will we ban hijab and set millions of Muslims free in her memory?
We must ban hijab, save innocent lives, end this abuse, and absolve the poor Muslim parents from having to make such difficult choices. Muslim parents are not animals. They are torn apart between the love of their children and their honor. Only the government can take that burden away. The only people who would not welcome this ban will be the mullahs who will see their power reduced. The average Muslims will be grateful and relieved, even though to keep the image of faithful believers, may publicly oppose the decision. .
Now that Muslims are living in the West in such a large numbers, politicians must make an extra effort to understand the Muslim mind. Only the hand of law can put an end to this culture of shame and help Muslims to integrate. If we let this division stand, a clash between Islam and the West will become inevitable. This means civil war.
#22 Posted by Eklavya on December 19, 2007 2:21:05 am
masan
That is a simple example of how interpretationism works.
Since so many people think only and EXCLUSIVELY in terms of 'interpretionism,' the rest of us have to pay attention to how commitment to interpretationism changes individuals and societies.
I am sure we have all noticed remarkable patterns. Allah/Hanuman/Shiva/Kali willing, we can all pool our ideas one day.
That is a simple example of how interpretationism works.
Since so many people think only and EXCLUSIVELY in terms of 'interpretionism,' the rest of us have to pay attention to how commitment to interpretationism changes individuals and societies.
I am sure we have all noticed remarkable patterns. Allah/Hanuman/Shiva/Kali willing, we can all pool our ideas one day.
#21 Posted by masanamuthu on December 18, 2007 4:24:16 am
3. When I mentioned Islam's position on murders and killings, my purpose was to state the position itself. I was not denying that Islamic fundamentalists use religion to justify their crimes. They do. Just because they say their crimes are justified by Islam, should we just blindly believe them? No. We have to look at the teachings of Islam for ourselves in order to know.
So I looked at the teaching of Islam you (and millions of Muslim apologists have quoted)
An oft-repeated verse of the Qur’an sums up Islam’s position: "if anyone kills a person…it shall be as if he killed the entire humanity" (5:32).
from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html
005.032
YUSUFALI: 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 messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
and then I read the associated description by Mr. Maududi.
The story of the two sons of Adam has been related to reproach the Jews for their plot to kill the Holy Prophet and his Companions. (v. 11 & E.N. 30). The story has also been used to emphasize the sanctity of human life. 27 - 32
This clearly says the directive is just for Jews to behave properly after the Muslims gained control.
So you guys take one part of a sentence and goto town with the "goodness" of Islam. Is that how it works?. So is it Ok for others to take the "slay the idolators wherever you see" and goto town about the "badness" of Islam?.
So I looked at the teaching of Islam you (and millions of Muslim apologists have quoted)
An oft-repeated verse of the Qur’an sums up Islam’s position: "if anyone kills a person…it shall be as if he killed the entire humanity" (5:32).
from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html
005.032
YUSUFALI: 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 messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
and then I read the associated description by Mr. Maududi.
The story of the two sons of Adam has been related to reproach the Jews for their plot to kill the Holy Prophet and his Companions. (v. 11 & E.N. 30). The story has also been used to emphasize the sanctity of human life. 27 - 32
This clearly says the directive is just for Jews to behave properly after the Muslims gained control.
So you guys take one part of a sentence and goto town with the "goodness" of Islam. Is that how it works?. So is it Ok for others to take the "slay the idolators wherever you see" and goto town about the "badness" of Islam?.
#20 Posted by majumdar on December 18, 2007 4:23:44 am
Aslam bhai,
(The paradox is, I have found that among muslim families they seem to accept sikh daughter in law but, they have disowned their daughter who has married a sikh boy that is an enigma wrapped up in mystery)
The answer is simple- patriarchy and property rights. The woman belongs to her hubby's family, not the vice versa. So the Sikh daughter in law is a Muslim but the daughter becomes a Sikh "property".
I presume the Sikh reaction will be just the same, accept Muslim d-i-l, reject Sikh daughter.
Regards
(The paradox is, I have found that among muslim families they seem to accept sikh daughter in law but, they have disowned their daughter who has married a sikh boy that is an enigma wrapped up in mystery)
The answer is simple- patriarchy and property rights. The woman belongs to her hubby's family, not the vice versa. So the Sikh daughter in law is a Muslim but the daughter becomes a Sikh "property".
I presume the Sikh reaction will be just the same, accept Muslim d-i-l, reject Sikh daughter.
Regards
#19 Posted by aslam644 on December 18, 2007 1:34:30 am
Re: # 13
The article I posted was about a case in derby, I know derby well, there is around 20,000 sikhs living in their own ghetto and about similar number mirpuris in a separate ghetto. The problems start in schools and colleges, where the fatal attraction takes place, there have been cases where muslim girls have ran off with sikh boys, likewise sikh girls have ran off with muslim boys. Very few from either communities approve of such unions.
The question you should be asking is, shouldn’t parents respect the wishes of their children?. The paradox is, I have found that among muslim families they seem to accept sikh daughter in law but, they have disowned their daughter who has married a sikh boy that is an enigma wrapped up in mystery
The article I posted was about a case in derby, I know derby well, there is around 20,000 sikhs living in their own ghetto and about similar number mirpuris in a separate ghetto. The problems start in schools and colleges, where the fatal attraction takes place, there have been cases where muslim girls have ran off with sikh boys, likewise sikh girls have ran off with muslim boys. Very few from either communities approve of such unions.
The question you should be asking is, shouldn’t parents respect the wishes of their children?. The paradox is, I have found that among muslim families they seem to accept sikh daughter in law but, they have disowned their daughter who has married a sikh boy that is an enigma wrapped up in mystery
#18 Posted by nkg on December 17, 2007 10:48:34 pm
Honor killing is not new in Northern India and Pakistan and other moslem countries. This mediaval barbaric culture of treating women as the personal property of her father, husband etc... has originated in mediaval period. We should get rid of this (ancient civilisations like India,China, Egypt, Greece , there was no such barbarism. It was prevalent in mediaval Europe also. We have inherited this from the moslems. In South India, this barbarism is not visible.)
#17 Posted by nkg on December 17, 2007 10:44:16 pm
Re: # 11
What a stupid logic!!! Now a days, you will find such logic, why LTTE is not called Hindu Terrorist but Moslems are only blamed...
Simple Answer: The crime and hatred is inspired by Islamic thought. So, that is islamic terrorism. LTTE problem is ethnic and political problem.
What a stupid logic!!! Now a days, you will find such logic, why LTTE is not called Hindu Terrorist but Moslems are only blamed...
Simple Answer: The crime and hatred is inspired by Islamic thought. So, that is islamic terrorism. LTTE problem is ethnic and political problem.
#16 Posted by arjun8 on December 17, 2007 7:04:22 pm
#15 Posted by naumanmir on December 17, 2007 3:54:19 pm
Just because they say their crimes are justified by Islam, should we just blindly believe them? No. We have to look at the teachings of Islam for ourselves in order to know.
when 4 british born muslims of pakistani descent blow up a bunch of people in london subways because of british participation in the war in iraq, it IS islamic terrorism...
heck, the london bomber even made a video saying you were attacked because you attacked us..the us isn't soccer fans or the britney spears fan club..
So to say that any Muslim who kills another person is doing it because his religion has told him to do so, is utterly wrong.
really? it's wrong..and yet they keep doing it again and again and again..and people like you keep making excuses for them..
Just because they say their crimes are justified by Islam, should we just blindly believe them? No. We have to look at the teachings of Islam for ourselves in order to know.
when 4 british born muslims of pakistani descent blow up a bunch of people in london subways because of british participation in the war in iraq, it IS islamic terrorism...
heck, the london bomber even made a video saying you were attacked because you attacked us..the us isn't soccer fans or the britney spears fan club..
So to say that any Muslim who kills another person is doing it because his religion has told him to do so, is utterly wrong.
really? it's wrong..and yet they keep doing it again and again and again..and people like you keep making excuses for them..
#15 Posted by naumanmir on December 17, 2007 3:54:19 pm
I appreciate the comments and would like to respond to two comments in particular.
Re: #2
You make a valid point that this was an honour killing. A great many people have made the same assumption. The reason I said that this murder was not an honour killing is because the motive of the crime is still unclear, as I mentioned in the article. It seems likely that honour might be the motive but so far, the father has not given his motive in court. Though he has confessed to the crime, the motive remains to be proven. I feel it is early to make the assumption on my own as to what the reason for the crime was.
Re: # 14
This is in response to a few comments that Mr. arjun8 has made. I would like to clarify a few points:
1. The murder of a daughter by her father has no link to the reasons that Muslim terrorists use to justify their crimes.
2. So far, the father of Aqsa Pervez has not given any reason, as to why he killed his daughter. He himself has not used religion to justify his crime. People have just assumed that he will use Islam to justify the murder. Fact is: he hasn't.
3. When I mentioned Islam's position on murders and killings, my purpose was to state the position itself. I was not denying that Islamic fundamentalists use religion to justify their crimes. They do. Just because they say their crimes are justified by Islam, should we just blindly believe them? No. We have to look at the teachings of Islam for ourselves in order to know.
Secondly, all religions have their fundamentalist groups. Islam is not unique in this case. And the fundamentalists of all religions use their respective religious ideologies to justify killing people. Is Islamic fundamentalism somehow more violent than other religious fundamentalisms? No. Its just that their actions seem to make the news headlines more. Their actions are still wrong and unjustified, for which they should be punished, but they are not the most violent. As far as number of deaths go, the terrorist group that has the highest record of killing is the Tamil Tigers, who believe in no religion, but a perverted version of Marxism. You can read more about this in a book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape.
So to say that any Muslim who kills another person is doing it because his religion has told him to do so, is utterly wrong. And even if a Muslim says that, we should look into the religion ourselves in order to know if there is a difference between what the religion says and what a person says.
Re: #2
You make a valid point that this was an honour killing. A great many people have made the same assumption. The reason I said that this murder was not an honour killing is because the motive of the crime is still unclear, as I mentioned in the article. It seems likely that honour might be the motive but so far, the father has not given his motive in court. Though he has confessed to the crime, the motive remains to be proven. I feel it is early to make the assumption on my own as to what the reason for the crime was.
Re: # 14
This is in response to a few comments that Mr. arjun8 has made. I would like to clarify a few points:
1. The murder of a daughter by her father has no link to the reasons that Muslim terrorists use to justify their crimes.
2. So far, the father of Aqsa Pervez has not given any reason, as to why he killed his daughter. He himself has not used religion to justify his crime. People have just assumed that he will use Islam to justify the murder. Fact is: he hasn't.
3. When I mentioned Islam's position on murders and killings, my purpose was to state the position itself. I was not denying that Islamic fundamentalists use religion to justify their crimes. They do. Just because they say their crimes are justified by Islam, should we just blindly believe them? No. We have to look at the teachings of Islam for ourselves in order to know.
Secondly, all religions have their fundamentalist groups. Islam is not unique in this case. And the fundamentalists of all religions use their respective religious ideologies to justify killing people. Is Islamic fundamentalism somehow more violent than other religious fundamentalisms? No. Its just that their actions seem to make the news headlines more. Their actions are still wrong and unjustified, for which they should be punished, but they are not the most violent. As far as number of deaths go, the terrorist group that has the highest record of killing is the Tamil Tigers, who believe in no religion, but a perverted version of Marxism. You can read more about this in a book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape.
So to say that any Muslim who kills another person is doing it because his religion has told him to do so, is utterly wrong. And even if a Muslim says that, we should look into the religion ourselves in order to know if there is a difference between what the religion says and what a person says.
#14 Posted by arjun8 on December 17, 2007 1:08:51 pm
#11 Posted by 12345678 on December 17, 2007 11:31:18 am
If a hindu kills someone, I suppose you balme it on the hindu religion then?
Nope..the washington snipers were muslims and noone but the small neocon fringe called them muslim snipers...
if a catholic spaniard blows himself up in a london subway saying he's doing it for what the brits did to his fellow irish catholics, that would be catholic terrorism..
9/11, bali, london have everything to do with islam...
If a hindu kills someone, I suppose you balme it on the hindu religion then?
Nope..the washington snipers were muslims and noone but the small neocon fringe called them muslim snipers...
if a catholic spaniard blows himself up in a london subway saying he's doing it for what the brits did to his fellow irish catholics, that would be catholic terrorism..
9/11, bali, london have everything to do with islam...
#13 Posted by Eklavya on December 17, 2007 12:58:53 pm
aslam bhai, a sikh girl having an affair with a Muslim boy is NOT a cultural issue, it is a religious issue, through and through. Any Muslim, even the most conservative one, would be happy she was saved from her 'cruel' parents who came in her way.
At least Muslim families should get your respect.
At least Muslim families should get your respect.
#12 Posted by rf786 on December 17, 2007 11:45:16 am
Re: # 7
laddu jee,
So much hatred is not good for the heart and soul, nor is it reasonably acceptable.
laddu jee,
So much hatred is not good for the heart and soul, nor is it reasonably acceptable.
#11 Posted by 12345678 on December 17, 2007 11:31:18 am
Re: # 3
arjun8, it is ignorant people like u who relate the wrong-doing of fanatics to a religion. If a hindu kills someone, I suppose you balme it on the hindu religion then?
It is sad how ignorant people like you start blaming religion based on the what some fanatics do whereas no religion in the world has anything to do with killings.
arjun8, it is ignorant people like u who relate the wrong-doing of fanatics to a religion. If a hindu kills someone, I suppose you balme it on the hindu religion then?
It is sad how ignorant people like you start blaming religion based on the what some fanatics do whereas no religion in the world has anything to do with killings.
listing 1-16
1 2
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- The Gin Game Naveen Qayyum
- The Unbearable Lightness of Seeing Wajahat Malik
- Yet Another Immigrant Story Madiha Qureshi
- Solving Amarnath: A New Hope in Kashmir Murtaza Shibli
- Diabetes: Wrestling with a Twenty-First Century Monster Mutaal Mooquin
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- tahmed32: mike #160 mirpur used... Muslim Ghettoisation
- _arjun9: hey masadi...we're still waiting... Muslim Ghettoisation
- tahmed32: Ahmedi_Mureed #158 I am... Muslim Ghettoisation
- hamidm2: Re: # 169 mohar mian, ....... Muslim Ghettoisation
- hamidm2: Re: # 158 ahmadi mureed... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Shattered_Sun: "Well Indians do smell... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mohar11: Re: # 164 Yes, yes,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- mohar11: PS: It seems the... Muslim Ghettoisation
