A Murder, euphemistically called an “honour killing,” and other horrors!

Recently, in Afghanistan,  a 14 year old female child was brutally murdered by two brothers, Sadeq and Masood, who have since been arrested. The background to this appalling crime is as follows. The young girl, Gastina Rahman, was desired for a wife by one of the brothers. The girl’s father, Noor Rahman, refused the marriage request,insisting that his daughter was too young to be engaged.
The brothers threatened Mr.Rahman and made it clear they would not take “NO” for an answer. The brutal pair picked their moment and mercilessly attacked the defenceless young girl, beheading her.
We find it difficult to describe the desperate wickedness and devilish evil of those killers and the terror and suffering of the child does not bear thinking about.

However, in Afghanistan, there are multiplied horrors. In Eastern Afghanistan, teenage girls have had noses and ears cut off or been attacked with axes, in so-called “honour” attacks!

A law was passed in Afghanistan in 2009, “The Elimination of Violence against Women Law” but, according to Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Judges, Prosecutors and Police in many parts of Afghanistan have begun to use the new law, but unfortunately, only in a small percentage of violence against women cases.”
Honour killings have taken place in Canada, UK and USA in recent times. The mainstream media are sometimes reluctant to state as a fact that Islam and “honour killings” are linked because they fear being labelled as “racist” or “Islamaphobes.”  This reluctance to “tell it like it is” means that women and young girls will continue to live with the risk of violence as a daily reality.

Linked to the above is the horror of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM.) Now, this horrific practice is not limited to Islam because it is to be found in some non-Islamic tribal cultures. However, Muslims are the principle religious group that practices FGM. According to the Home Office (UK) website, it is estimated that up to 24,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk of FGM and between 100m to 140m girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences. In France, there have been some successful prosecutions, partly due to better reporting and investigatory procedures, whereas in the UK, there has yet to be a conviction despite the fact that FGM was criminalised in the UK more than two decades ago.

Mass immigration (largely uncontrolled) has brought this terrible problem to the UK  and it is now public knowledge, yet women in many countries have endured these assaults on their bodies for years, perhaps thinking that this was the common lot of women everywhere, OR, that we in the West did not care about them and their indescribable suffering, which is not true, as many of us were ignorant of their torment.

In conclusion, we have to ask, where are the Feminists? They have a lot to say about violence against women which, for some of them, includes a man (a husband or boyfriend,  most feminists are anti-marriage, ) asking a woman to give up work because he is in a position to support her!Such a scenario is (to feminists) an example of “violence!” Yet when it comes to the (actual) violence of FGM, feminists are virtually silent, too afraid to speak up for the victims lest they be accused of “racism.” What hypocrites!


24 thoughts on “A Murder, euphemistically called an “honour killing,” and other horrors!

  1. I agree, most feminists are hypocrites. Islam is a religion that views women as objects rather than people and advocates the killing of anyone who has the audacity to disagree or think for themselves.

    To most people today, it doesn’t seem to matter how many innocent women are murdered, or mutilated, or married against their will – Islam is peace!?

    • Yes, we are lucky that christianity is gradually moving away from such atrocities (and are prevented by the law and human rights legislation in western countries from acting as they used to). Hopefully Islam will take the same path to a less obnoxious existence and let people follow their own paths without all the judgement and fearmongering which many christians still feel compelled to spew.

      • So their atrocities were of a different kind then. Christianity never treated women as objects – to be quiet and not dare to teach men (Mrs White take note), to marry their rapists, to be killed for ‘moral’ transgressions (not so different from an honour killing). Let’s leave aside it’s other atrocities such as the crusades, the inquisition etc and just concentrate on the penalties for women meted out by christians down the years. I don’t see much difference between what is stated in the bible and the Koran – what is different is that most christians don’t carry out those instructions anymore (and try to pretend that they never did or they were not carried out by true christians). It does not stop them reciting their death threats like that crew who protest Belfast Pride (I assume Mrs White is one of them)

        • Golfieni,
          You are correct in assuming that we are part of a Christian witness against Belfast Pride every year but you are FALSELY ACCUSING us of “reciting death threats” against homosexuals. WE are the ones who need police protection as we oppose Pride. Now Golfie, can you think of ANY reason why we need police protection? Could it possibly be that we might be in danger of being harmed by homosexuals?

          As for making threats, may we inform you that at a recent Pride parade in London, we have seen evidence that a death threat was issued by a homosexual who wrote about “shooting Christians in the head.” Now, Golfie, care to make a comment?

      • golfieni,
Are you as ignorant as you pretend to be? How is it an “atrocity” to have a different role for women than for men in church? The fact that women are not to be teachers over men in the assembly, or to be leaders of the assembly, is not an atrocity, nor does it treat women as objects. Christian teachings are that women are equal to men in every respect except for roles IN the assembly.

        Pulling information from the O.T. in reference to laws for Israel totally out of their context so as to misrepresent what is actually taught in the O.T. is typical for those who have no clue what the Bible really says; instead such talking points are routinely gathered off atheist sites who make this stuff up, and people like you who post them show your ignorance by not studying the matter for yourself. Nevertheless, even with a proper understanding of the passages, they never applied to anyone outside of Israel.

        The crusades were instituted by the Roman Catholic church, and most of those participating in the crusades were not Christian. However, if it wasn’t for the crusades you’d be speaking arabic – if you weren’t executed. The inquisition was not done by Christians, but members of the apostate Roman Catholic Church. You will not find that sort of teaching in the Bible – BUT you WILL find it in the Qur’an!

        Christians who follow what the Bible teachers will not do violence or abuse people, but Muslims who follow the Qur’an will do so. That is the difference.

      • mrandmrswhite, you have never and do not have (or need) police protection at Belfast Pride. The only violence at that event has been a member of the protest group hitting someone with a bible and a member of that group trying to forcibly remove the dog collar from a minister in the parade. The police presence is to keep you lot in your box so you can’t harm the people enjoying their day or cause violence by interacting with normal society and inciting hatred and violence against normal people going about their lawful activities. The protest group have recited the death threats from your bible and have had placards which extol the penalties you say your god calls for homosexuals. I regard several of the so called biblical verses which are chanted and printed as incitement to hatred and violence. If you think theses are false accusations then I suggest you review the video footage available. Video, unlike some people, do not lie.

        By the way if you want to broaden the scope of the dangers posed to groups I would point you to the christian inspired proposed law in Uganda in which people like yourself (christians) are attempting to have the biblical law enacted with the death penalty for homosexuals. Care to comment on that?

      • Glenn E. Chatfield,

        Nice try – the old “you are ignorant of the bible”, the old “these laws were for the Israelites only (some of the laws anyway as you still cling to some of them)”, and the “they are not true christians” all in one post.

        You – (roman catholics included) are all christians and all are tarred with the history of your religion and it;s present acts. If you disagree with this then you cannot condemn Islam for it’s past acts (maybe they were apostate muslims) or for the acts of some of it’s current adherents (they don’t understand their Koran)/

        You can’t have it both ways and no amount of chicanery will get you away from the fact that your bible contains all sorts of commanded heinous acts and punishments which you have chosen to ignore and cognitively have tried to persuade yourself are not there.

        I do not pretend to be ignorant but even if I did it would be a better state than being deliberately and calculatingly so.

        • Golfie,

          Roman Catholics have completed twisted what the BIble says and have added to it their own bizarre ideology. Don’t criticize a faith based on people who misrepresent it.

          If you would study the Bible just a wee bit you would KNOW that the laws noted in the O.T. are not for anyone but Israel. Those who say otherwise don’t read the book.

          Islam is based on violence. Study your history. Read the Qur’an – I have. The goal of Islam is to convert by the sword. You will find nothing like that in the Christian Bible.

          I challenge you to give one – just one because I don’t have time for explaining everything which you can find easily on the ‘net – just one incident where God commands “heinous acts.”

          Oh, and with that, please give your standard of morality – by what standard can you judge something to be “heinous.”

      • There is no excuse for death threats either from LGBT people or christians. Can you please address the biblically inspired “kill the gays” law proposed by christians in Uganda which seems to have links to a poster who has posted here.

      • “catholics have twisted”…. the they are not true christian defence again, doesn’t wash, try harder next time.

        “The goal of Islam is to convert by the sword” —- Onward christian soldiers……

        “by what standard can you judge something to be “heinous.”” by my own brain – I guess you base yours on the subjective standards in your bible. And don’t give me all the guff about absolute or objective truth because we all know that is just an apologetics way trying to muddle the argument. That question comes from evangelicals 101 and it is a pretty lame one. you really must try harder.

        • Golfieni,
          IF you’d study just a wee bit of the Bible you’d KNOW that Roman Catholicism does not represent true Christianity. There may be Catholics who become Christians in spite of the Romanist teachings, but Every single apologetics ministry I’ve ever known, and every single ex-Catholic I’ve ever known, have stated that Roman Catholicism as an apostate organization and has been so since at least the 6th century. This has nothing to do with a “no true scotsman” fallacy – it is about studying what the Christian faith in the Bible teaches vs what Romanists teach. It’s how we identify all cults and cultic systems.

          Christians do not convert by force. Have there been Romanists attempting such in the past? Yes. But the Christian faith does not teach that. You can’t force anyone to love God and accept the free gift of salvation through Christ. You won’t find that in the Bible.
          Islam has from its inception converted people by force, and their holy book tells them to do so.

          There is no subjective standard in the Bible. God is who decides what is or is not moral, or “heinous.” But you have no ultimate standard. You have only your opinion. There is indeed an objective truth, and that doesn’t muddle the argument. Perfect example is that by God’s law the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis was heinous – it was immoral mass murder. By the opinion and beliefs of the Nazis it was right, proper and moral. So when you go by personal opinion, you can have as many standards as you have people.

  2. I notice you chose not to publish the comment of my friend here. Nicole is a friend of mine and she told me what she wrote recently on this blog. I represent a womens action group here in the US and I thought I would visit this article. Susan, you are a very confused woman, you are also a hypocrite. I am disappointed because you chose not to publish Nicole’s comment because you had no answer for it and you did not want your sycophants here (Glenn, Yuri?) to see that. I have looked through your posts here and I can only come to one conclusion; I fail to see how a woman can possibly complain about female genital mutilation when she actively opposes here the very concept of female sexuality. Your articles state that women cause men stress, they take their jobs, they de-masculate them, they fight for their countries (how dare they!), they choose to open their own doors (*******) they dare to fall pregnant unintentionally. You, Susan, represent a society that opposes women having control over what grows in their own uterus’s, and yet in this article you condemn another society that opposes women having the freedom to enjoy sexual pleasure. So who is right? you in your belief or they in theirs? from what I have read here, you see women who enjoy sexual activity as being sluts.
    I ask you, what right do you have to condemn a society that does not believe in the basic human freedom of female sexual pleasure when you yourself do not believe in the most basic right of a woman to remove an unwanted growth in her uterus? you are really no better than them!
    I would have attempted to discuss the issue of female genital mutilation with you but as you are an evangelistic type of christian I will not even begin to bother, I have encountered too many of your kind and your minds are simply too narrow and too cloistered to think along any other lines other that your own. I can see that you edit and censor comments here, you do it to justify your own position, to create a platform where Susan stands on top. I have copied this comment to several websites for others to discuss so if you choose not to publish it it will still exist elsewhere. Even if you cannot bring yourself to answer it. And before you jump in with the accusation you so love to make – yes, I AM a feminist and proud of it! I fight for women, young girls, baby girls, who are born where females are an endangered species, who have no rights, whose bodies are controlled by men, civil laws and religious beliefs, anyone but themselves, I fight for them! I fight for women to decide themselves whether to be pregnant or not and I fight for women who want the right to enjoy the sexual pleasure their bodies where created to give them. You seem to fight for no woman. I fight people like you every day of my life. Susan, in my opinion, people like you are the enemy. Good day.

    • Melanie, Would you care to comment on the beheading of a 14 year old girl and other so-called “honour killings.”

      As for your description of two commenters on our blog as “sychophants,” you are completely mistaken as we have no “sychophants” on this blog, only people who agree or disagree with us and we DO publish comments from those who disagree with us.

      We do edit comments from time to time because some are vulgar and/or contain bad language and we have edited yours because it was indecent in parts. So, if you want your comments published in full (should you make any in future) DON’T use vulgar, indecent words.

    • Melanie,
      You can have all the sexual pleasure you want. But if you don’t want to be pregnant, then use birth control or keep your legs crossed. If you are so irresponsible as to have unprotected sex, then don’t kill the baby which results from it. Babies don’t spontaneously generate out of thin air.

  3. Sex was not intended purely for procreation and that comment is directed at both of you. And you completely avoided the fact that I mentioned women – feminists – ARE fighting to outlaw female genital mutilation, you are avoiding the very topic you have raised Susan. Glenn, it is not your job or privilege to tell women that sex is for causing pregnancy only. It is not for you to dictate that women must not have sex unless they want a baby, it is far easier to criticise female sexual behaviour than address the real issue you have raised here. How arrogant and how typical of people with your mindset. As you have said to others here and I quote ‘You are unreachable and unteachable’ – both of you, you don’t care about women or girls only about sperm and eggs, so I am wasting my time with people like you. Good day.

    • Melanie,

      I never stated nor implied that sex is only for procreation. What you raised was a straw man to knock down. Sexual relations were designed to be between husband and wife for two reasons – to promote unity in the marriage and to bear children. But that isn’t the issue.

      The FACT is that sex is where children come from. If you don’t want a baby, then use some sort of contraceptive. You have no idea about who I care about, by the way. You can’t dialogue with the question so you begin attacking and name-calliing.

      And please show me from laws, science, the Bible or anything but YOUR opinion where I have no say so on the subject at hand.

      • Can you prove that sexual relations were designed ?

        “The FACT is that sex is where children come from” not really true as artificial methods are not exactly new. I could have a child and never have sex with a woman and I don’t need anything more than a turkey baster to do it so not even modern science is required.

        • Golfeini,
          Artificial methods of producing children have to replicate what sex does – they have to place the sperm and egg together in a laboratory environment, which is not natural.

          Biology 101 proves sexual relations were designed – look at the plumbing. DUH! Other wise you have to explain how evolution made male and female as separate, and needing each other to reproduce.

      • Biology 101 shows that our organs evolved to allow reproduction (amongst other functions). They were not designed which presupposes a designer. I am glad that at least you accept evolution. Not all creatures require male and female to reproduce and not all sex is about procreation – some is for fun and some is an expression of love neither of which require the ability or chance of conception.

        • Golfieni,
          To deny there is a designer is to suppress the truth. Biology 101 does not show evolution. Biology 101 only demonstrates what is, and one’s worldview decides to credit a designer or ascribe it to impossible chance (life cannot come from non-life – THAT is a proven scientific law).

          I did NOT accept evolution. I only made a point that if you eliminate design, then YOU have to explain how evolution could make the male and female separate and needing each other to reproduce.

          We were not discussing other “creatures” – we are discussing human beings.

          I have also previously stated that there are two purposes for sexual intercourse: unitive and procreative. The “fun” and “expression of love” comes under the unitive function – to unify the man and woman and make them as one.

          Explain how evolution made emotions? Random atoms bouncing around is not capable of creating any emotions.

          You believe evolution made you. You believe random atoms and molecules formed into all the complex cells, which would include your brain. Your brain is then the result of chance happenings, how can we trust anything you think or say – it’s just random happenstance!

      • “Explain how evolution made emotions? Random atoms bouncing around is not capable of creating any emotions”

        That is not how evolution shows the development of anything. Your statement about random atoms is of your own making not of anyone involved in evolutionary biology.

        You seem to think evolution is random – perhaps this is why you fail to understand it as you clearly don’t even have a basic grasp of the fundamentals.

        btw way stating that I believe something (especially when that something is a crock) is another dishonest ploy in debate. It’s called a straw man or Aunt Sally.

        I do not trust anything you think or say – I look for evidence (supporting or otherwise) and base my views on that. I thought that was what normal people did.

        • Golfieni,
          I am very well read about evolution. The theory says that something came from nothing. That somehow in some primordial soup a bunch of atoms decided to get together to make something, and from that something everything else developed. That’s the simplistic way of explaining it. Which means everyone is the result of random chance.

          From your assault on all things from God, the only assumption I could come to was that you accepted that evolution produced everything rather than a Creator. I’m sorry I was wrong in that assumption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s