« Father found guilty in new 'honour killing' trial | Main | 'Enough' of a Flop »

Adding Insult to Injury: the Appalling P.C. Misreporting of the Latest ‘Honour Killing’

Despite all the appalling details to have emerged in today's press about the truly dreadful ‘honour killing’ of Banaz Mahmod, given yesterday’s guilty verdict of her father and uncle for arranging her murder, the true and horrendous significance of one aspect of her case, to my mind, has yet to have be adequately noted or commented on.

It makes details of her murder even more chilling and disturbing, if that is possible, than those that have already emerged and been noted by the media.

Those already noted include:

that she had repeatedly informed the police members of her family were planning to kill her for, in their eyes, having besmirched their family honour by entering into an unsuitable relationship;

that the police failed to act on her complaints or take them seriously, even after she turned up at a local police station, one New Year’s Eve just a few months before her murder, distraught and blood bespattered, accusing her father of just having attempted to strangle her;

that a few months after this incident, her naked corpse was found, unceremoniously crammed into a suitcase that had been dumped beneath a pile of bin-bags, her neck still bearing the bootlace used to strangle her;

that her suspected killers, a pair of Iraqi Kurdish contract-killers whom her father and uncle had hired to carry out her killing, have reportedly returned to Iraq, where they are openly boasting of having raped her before garrotting her.

'How could the details of her case possibly get any worse or more disturbing?', I can hear you think. Well, I think they can.

For, as I say, there is an aspect about Ms Mahod’s tragic case the true significance of which has yet to receive the notice it deserves, or, worse still, is being ignored for reasons of political correctness.

As reported, what Ms Mahmod had done so to shame the men-folk in her family that they were willing to have her killed was to enter into a relationship with an Iranian Kurd, that began after the breakdown of the marriage that her father had arranged for her when she was aged seventeen.

As the case is reported in today's Times, why this relationship had so shamed her father and uncle was that the man with whom she had entered into it was neither ‘a strict Muslim’ in their eyes, nor from the same region in Iraq as they were.

The disturbing aspect of the case the significance of which has yet to be duly noted, or, still worse, might be being deliberately suppressed for reasons of political correctness, is that, by entering into this relationship, had the victim not previously obtained a divorce in Muslim law, she would have been committing adultery in Muslim eyes, a capital offence for Muslim women according to Shariah law.

It could well be this consideration, and not the fact the man with whom the murder victim had entered a relationship was not a true Muslim in the eyes of her father and uncle, or from the same place as were they, that made them think they were not just entitled but morally obligated to take her life.

Should it have been her adultery in the eyes of her family that had so dishonoured them, then, contrary to what is being said about her murder as well as about a disturbingly large number of honour killings of and suicides by Muslim women throughout the Muslim world, it is the religion that they shared in common, and not any other extraneous circumstances, such as what passes for local custom in the parts of the world from which their families hail, that was directly implicated in their untimely deaths.

I truly hope I am wrong here, and it will turn out that the murder victim in this case had previously obtained a divorce in Muslim law before beginning her relationship with the man her family considered had so dishonoured it.

If I am right, however what this tragic case further suggests is that the government would be wholly wrong, even to contemplate for one minute, granting any form of jurisdiction here to Shariah law, even in matters of family law. For doing so may only encourage other Muslims to believe that it takes precedence over the law of the land, something which, especially in the area of criminal law, would be fatal, as the details of this tragic case would seem to have shown only too clearly.

I trust that all who attended last week-end's 'Enough' demonstration to protest about what they consider to be the human rights violations of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis will be out again in protest this coming weekend, this time at the truly horrendous crimes of honour-killing that are being perpetrated against Muslim women, not just here, but throughout the Muslim world. I do hope so, but am not holding my breath.

Comments (6)

J M Hutchings:

Henry De Butler writes "If you debunk the bible, you debunk Islam, Judaism and Christianity". Strange conclusion, but then he does sound like a stuck record. Move on!

Henry De Butler:

The obvious culprit in this and many other killings is organised religionism. Of course even in this article it is an evil that none may dare speak its name.
If you debunk the bible you debunk Islam, Judaism and Christianity. How many lives would that save? No popes killing by preaching against little rubber condoms, no honour killings, no fanatics taking over Palestinian land. No Sunnis killing Shias. To solve any problem you must ultimately go to its roots.

Mike:

Kevyn:

I would agree that having different laws for different groups is the catalyst for a fractured society.

It is fair to say that we have begun the journey down this road under Blair's premiership.

Kevyn Bodman:

From the article:
---------------------------
If I am right, however what this tragic case further suggests is that the government would be wholly wrong, even to contemplate for one minute, granting any form of jurisdiction here to Shariah law, even in matters of family law. For doing so may only encourage other Muslims to believe that it takes precedence over the law of the land...

---------------------------

The writer is correct but the point should be taken further.

There should only be one law; different laws for different groups,whether muslims,jains, atheists or
chess-players will fragment society.

If 'other muslims' were allowed to think that sharia 'takes precedence over the law of the land' what would non-muslims think?
How would they then act?

ONE law,no concessions to minority groups,no 'blind-eye' to any activity by any minority if such activity would not be allowed if it came from a majority group.

Without that policy society will move further and further away from social cohesion.

As for the Press/TV their goals are:
selling advertising space

reinforcing the opinions of their typical readers/viewers.

Reporting news stories fully is,at best,their third goal.

The BBC doesn't sell advertising space but has to stay in favour with the government,and neither the current government nor the Opposition is keen to see the subject of this article openly and fully discussed.

Mike:

The application of double standards by the press when reporting any news that is detrimental to the Muslim community is not new.

I suppose that in these oppressive times we should be thankful that the press report such events at all.
But remember, in this PC climate, anyone who says anything disparging against an ethnic group, and in particular the Muslim community is a RACIST.

So freedom of the press is an ongoing battle with the oppressors of freedom.

I realise that you are speculating, but the media are always looking to apply context to events. For example, when a UK soldier is killed in Iraq, they'll give you the up-to-date casuality list since the war began or how many more have died that month. Yet in this matter, they didn't choose to put this case which involves Muslims in the context of Islam. I believe it is important that non-Muslims are able to understand the behaviour of Muslim people, and the media can help in that understanding by telling us about the parts of Islam that Islamic extremists may have considered when committing crimes. It is irresponsible for them to deny us this important information.

Post a comment

(All comments are welcome, anonymous or otherwise, but comments may need to be approved. We try to be as quick as we can.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 12, 2007 5:25 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Father found guilty in new 'honour killing' trial.

The next post in this blog is 'Enough' of a Flop.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34