Killing your child in the name of "honor"

It seems to be a growing trend outside of the Middle East that has crossed over into Western culture with the migration of Islam. If your children disgrace you, kill them.

There is a line where culture and rule of law have to come to an agreement. The line exist because it has been determined that there are things that are not going to be permitted, regardless of the culture one has come from. In the United States, there are no laws that allow for family members to kill family members over matters of "honor," and arranged marriages are something that generally went by the wayside long ago. And yet we are seeing an incident involving both of these situations coming out of Georgia today as a Pakistani man, Chaudhry Rashid, has allegedly killed his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, after she expressed the desire to be released from an arranged marriage to a man, who lives in Chicago, that she has not seen in months.

According to police, there was "friction between father and victim" in the weeks leading up to the killing. Rashid had not spoken to his daughter in more than two months.

Police said Rashid was so angered that his daughter planned to divorce her husband that he killed her after a heated argument at the family's home, FOX News affiliate MyFoxAtlanta reported.

Police who arrived at the scene said they found Rashid's two sons at the end of the driveway and their father sitting behind a car smoking a cigarette. Officers said that Rashid appeared "distraught and possibly mournful" and told police "my daughter is dead" when they arrived.

After entering the home, Kanwal's body was discovered in the doorway of a bedroom, cold to the touch, officials said.

All indications are that the girl was strangled to death, according to ligature markings on her throat and neck.

So many random thoughts run through the mind in these instances.

So many questions.

There are many times when parents are displeased or disappointed by the desires or actions of their children; there are many times when the inverse is true, as well, and children are disappointed by their parents. There is no excuse, however, in the case of divorce, or the expressed desire for a divorce, that justifies the murder of one's child for seeking to remove themselves from a situation that they find untenable.

Honor killings are carried out for a number of reasons. From refusal or trying to leave an arranged marriage to even finding ones self (female) the victim of a sexual assault, the results wind up being the same; a woman is killed at the hands of a man or men for bringing about "dishonor."

I'm curious how someone who has been the victim of a sexual assault is the one doing the dishonoring? That line of thinking seems to be inverted, in my way of thinking. And it would seem that the law is on my side in this matter.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This is another one of those things in which a mountain is made of a mole hill in it's meaning. There is no "seperation of church and state" implied here other than that "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof."

Law's prohibiting murder are not a prohibition of "the free expression thereof."

Western culture is at a crossroads, and many do not seem to realize the very nature of the situation at hand as it plays out daily in towns and communities across the area once referred to as Western Christendom. The foundations of nations and their cultures are being challenged by an influx of a mind-set that has not, in some instances, left the Middle Ages and progressed into modern time. One can not refer to ones self as being "progressive" in ones thinking when one is allowing a mindset that victimizes the victim.

The "honor killings" are a misnomer. There is no honor, nor is there valor, in the murder of one's child for seeking to leave a marriage.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

[UPDATED AND BUMPED] The British are Caving! The British are Caving!

Updates Below

There once was a time when it was said "The sun does not set on the British flag." At the height of the British Empire, the rule of the throne was felt, literally, around the world. The British Empire has gone into decline within our lifetime; what remains is now the British Commonwealth.

In his day, Alexander conquered the known world and had plans for extending his empire beyond the known reaches of the mapped world. His rule extended across Europe and into Asia and Africa. Still today there are cities to be found in several nations which bear the name Alexandria.

It has also been said that "All roads lead to Rome." Before Rome there were (in no particular order) Greece, Egypt, Persia, Babylon, and after the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires. Those are just the empires that come to mind off the top of my head.

Let us not forget Hitler's dreams of a 1,000 year German empire he called the Third Reich.

There are a great many who think, and believe, that we are witnessing an attempt at a global Islamic empire. Last year's rally in Indonesia by a group of hard line Muslims called for a global caliphate.

More than 70,000 members of a hardline Muslim group held a rally in Indonesia that heard calls for a caliphate -- or Islamic rule -- to govern the world.

The supporters of the Hizbut Tahrir group filled up most of an 80,000-seat sports stadium in the capital Jakarta, waving flags as they heard fiery speeches saying it was "time for the caliphate to reign."

The meeting was held as part of "civic education" for Indonesian Muslims, said Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, a spokesman for Hizbut Tahrir.

The organisation advocates Islamic rule and is banned in several Middle Eastern countries.

And yet there are those who would say that those who think that there are Muslim extremist groups who are intent upon world domination are paranoid and don't know what they are talking about. One needs but to look across Europe to see the influx of Muslim immigrants into their countries and see the conflict of cultures that is already beginning to start. One can also look here at home in the U.S. and see that there are situations arising where one student was even suspended for the horrible offense of leaving his bagged lunch, a ham steak, on a table where a group of Muslim students were seated.

I'm sure those students were critically injured by the offending ham steak.

And now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury stating that the infusion of Sharia Law into the British legal system is "unavoidable."

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

In other words, the rule of law in Great Britain is going to have to change to include Sharia law.

Does this mean that British legal officials will not charge fathers who kill their wives and daughters for not wearing traditional Muslim attire with murder? Will stoning become a common place event in the streets of London when people are caught in the act of adultery? Will Scotland Yard have a chopping block for the removal of limbs of those convicted of theft?

Will we see the Queen stepping down from the throne and donning a burkah?

I have to say this. Our founding fathers in the United States were wise to prohibit, in the Constitution, the establishment of a state sponsored religious body.

Read Debbie's commentary on this situation by clicking here.

[UPDATE]

Perhaps there is still hope for the Brit's, after all. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has denounced the Archbishop of Canterbury's suggestion that Sharia Law and Parliamentary Law can co-exist:

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

THERE'S that stiff upper lip!

[UPDATE 8FEB07]

Now the ruling body of the Church of England have begun to weigh in on this still developing situation, calling for the resignation of the Archbishop:

A senior Church of England clergyman called today for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, over his remarks supporting Sharia in England.

The call, from a long-standing member of the Church's governing body, the General Synod, demonstrated the strength of the backlash Dr Williams that faces from within his own Church — as well as from political and other faith leaders.

The senior Synod member, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told The Times: "A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.

"There have been a lot of calls today for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but yes, he should resign."

Personally, I have to agree. He SHOULD resign.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.