To wonder why so many honour killings happen in Islamic countries when Islam preaches peace?

[Mooblies]

Also, how could a parent who loves their child consider killing them for honour, or do the people that commit them not really love their children?

I think I'll just give other and let math and mooblies say it! They are better informed than me.

Re: India. It doesn't really matter hugely what the "government" in India does. It won't make any difference to its prevalance there. Sometimes it seems even economic advancement and prosperity make few inroads.

Don't forget even in Egypt, the testimony of one woman in court is worth half of one man's testimony. In Egypt.

I think they should, actually; I think they should be addressed as a specific problem. However I respect your view; I imagine we are motivated by the same defensiveness towards women's rights.

Honour killing in India amongst Hindus arises mostly from the dictates of the caste system and of course it couldn't exist unless families were strongly patriarchal, with the attendant theory of women and girls as property. Maybe it is too much to hope that government efforts to eliminate the caste system will be speeded up by rising prosperity.

At least the government takes an official stand in India, and cold comfort in India men are killed in about 40% of cases. This is due to the caste based inspiration for Hindu honour killings. Women and men alike are bound to maintain caste distinctions. The preponderance of female victims amongst Muslims illustrates the fact that women are the keepers of family honour in many Islamic societies; sexual purity is the role of women (well illustrated by the requirement to veil).

In many Muslim societies there seems hardly a peep against the idea that killing girls and women is perfectly acceptable when family honour is at stake. By contrast with Indian governments, the refusal of Muslim authorities to unambiguously denounce honour killing perpetuates the practice -- claims that it has nothing to do with Islam (so therefore it falls outside the scope of religious proclamations) are disingenuous. There is clearly a moral issue involved, but since the victims are mainly girls and women, standing up for them and therefore publicly asserting that they have rights relative to the family is difficult. The fundamental issue when it comes to denouncing this appalling treatment of women and girls is the primacy of men and second class position of women, which is seen as a religiously ordained fact of life.

I would also be completely against any special status.

I think there is always the tendency to think of women who are victims of violence at the hands of family members as somehow different from women who are victims of crimes committed by strangers; this almost reflexive tendency would be magnified in the case of honour killing if honour killing was to be given any special status.

Crimes against women in general tend to have a special 'not so serious' status to begin with (see laughable attitude to rape for instance) and certainly considering honour killing a lesser crime (or somehow excusable) than violence within families without the religious component would be a huge mistake.

Mrs DV I do understand that there should not be addressed as a separate problem under the law. I mean education programmes and social programmes to address the issue should develop differently. But I'm at the edges of my knowledge here - it's opinion.

There is always an educational component to proper enforcement of the law, ever since the days of the village stocks and public hangings.

What I don't understand is why Mothers and Fathers - from whatever religion or culture don't want more for their children than what they hadand just want to continue the nasty old status quo. My DGP's wanted more for us, as did our parents. They wanted us to get a good education, good jobs and to find partners we would be happy with. Not work in a coal mine or live hand to mouth.

I cannot understand why any parents in 2012 would want to marry off their 16 year old daughter to some ill educated bloke from a village in the arse end of nowhere just to keep some bit of land in the family when she could go to university and become a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse or whatever and have a great career. And this isn't just about Muslim, Hindu or Sikh families. We saw the same things happening in My Big Fat Gipsy Wedding - girls taken out of school at 13 to care for siblings and married off at 16 because that is tradition. Maintaining your culture is one thing but potentially condemning your children to a lifetime of drudgery isn't it.

And I hate the term 'honour killing' - it's murder. But until those communities accept that a life sentence for murder as being more shameful than the murder itself then it will continue. In the UK at least.

Yes, they are cultural and to do with family honour, but the belief system informing that is religious. Family honour is tied up with the belief system, marrying outside the religion or religious caste.

See, I still don't think that the concept of family honour is informed by religious beliefs as such. Rather, I think that religious beliefs are co-opted to justify an underlying belief in "honour" that is cultural in origin. Hence Muslims talk about honour in terms of chastity and religious virtue, while Hindus often (but not always) interpret it in terms of the caste system etc. Sikhs will have another interpretation. In my opinion, none of these communities derive their views on family honour directly from their religions, but rather, they sometimes use
their respective religions to justify their cultural values. Hence honour killing and violence towards women tends to be more prevalent among Hindus and Sikhs in North India, where many cultural values are shared with neighbouring Pakistan, than among Hindus in South India, where the culture and traditions are quite different.

As for the government doing anything about it, sadly, attempts to dismantle the caste system are a long way off being effective. Likewise attempts to prevent selective abortions - the gender imbalance in some northern states is truly shocking. But progress isn't helped by the backward values of some politicians and local officials who are willing to turn a blind eye to these issues, or worse still, try to justify them. Unfortunately, this is probably the case in so many countries.

I think it's tremendously important for us to understand the cultural values that contribute to these problems, and indeed any religious factors that may be at work. However, I stand by the view that, ultimately, these crimes are just another way in which a small minority of men seek to exercise power and control over women and young girls, and they must be tackled within this wider context.

Busters it is because the life we have here is seen as an unpleasant but necessary prelude to the hereafter and nothing more. Paradise is where it's at, not the good job, the education that takes you out of the fields and into the middle class lifestyle. When you mix up religion with self identity and the whole purpose of this life is the next life then you will do whatever it takes to ensure you do not end up miserable in the next life as well as this one and if doing well in the here and now involves abandoning what you see as basic requirements of your religion (including making sure your family's females are chaste) then you will choose perpetuating your family's poverty and lack of education over what modern life has to offer them. Simply, they do it because their eyes are on the hereafter.

'And I hate the term 'honour killing' - it's murder. But until those communities accept that a life sentence for murder as being more shameful than the murder itself then it will continue. In the UK at least. '
I agree with this.

Although honour killing tends to happen more in northern India than in the south, men are almost as likely to be killed for infractions of the honour code as women are, whereas in Muslim societies the victims are overwhelmingly women, and this is because of the tendency of the religion to assign to women a role as keepers of honour.

Interesting explanation Maththank you. I was genuinely asking those questions so I appreciate them being answered.

True math - and northern India seems to be going backwards in terms of panchayat decisions and power.

"The aim of the Wahhabi sect is to take over the Islamic world. It is the power behind the throne in Saudi Arabia and there is no reason to believe religious influence and political power would not go hand in hand if it were to reach tipping point and attain power elsewhere.

It is completely intolerant of any other sects in Islam (Shi'ites, etc.), and Judaism and Christianity are in its sights too. Muslims who are not following the strict Wahhabi way are not considered true Muslims but enervators, or 'claimants to Islam'. In the 1970s oil revenue started funding the rise and rise of Wahhibism around the world. To date billions have been spent establishing mosques and madrassas and training clerics."

Absolutely, Math. In fact, in the Ottoman empire the Wahhabi sect was considered so crazy and dangerous that they were killed. Al Quaeda was booted out of Iraq, because the local tribes got repelled by their extreme cruelty and turned against them (telling the American forces where they were), and muslim mainstream opinion was sickened by the barbaric cutting of hostages throats on TV. Notice they don't do it any more? Its because MUSLIMS were horrified and they lost serious support as a result.

And now this extreme puritannical sect of Islam is being financed by petrodollars. The growing civil war in Nigeria, which will eventually result in that country being split? The civil war in Somalia, which HAS resulted in the country splitting? The war in Mali? All funded and financed by the Saudi proseletysing of Wahhabi Islam.

Not for nothing is oil called 'the devil's excrement'.

Muslims need to wake up, stop pointing fingers at the West, own their own internal issues and splits, and DO something about them, just as Christianity did during the Reformation and the Counter Reformation 500 years ago. If Mohammed was walking around today he would be horrified at the ridiculous shrouding of women, and muslim extremism. What a pity he did not name his successor before he died.

Every day brings another report of a Christian church being attacked in northern Africa, and Kenya. The recent destruction of the shrines and monuments in Timbouctou in Mali was all done by Wahhabi influenced forces and it was followed by the infliction of terrorism designed to cow the residents. The destruction of the famous Buddha statues of Bamiyan by the Taliban in western Afghanistan was also inspired by Wahhabism. Salafists are waging war on Sufis throughout the Muslim world in any place where law and order allows them free rein. Shrines have been destroyed and people killed.

Math you know so much about this. how come?

In the news today, in case you didn't see it.

Parents kill daughter for looking at boy

"There was a boy who came by on a motorcycle. She (Anusha) turned to look at him twice. I told her before not to do that, it's wrong. People talk about us because our older daughter was the same way," he said."

Here you have a fatal mixture of heartless, small, fearful people more concerned about their own reputation than about their bond to their daughter in a strict Muslim society where reputation means more than life itself.

Brycie, I got interested in the topic when DD1 did a course on modern mid eastern history. It seemed a natural topic for a feminist with an interest in history to be interested in.>

it is very easy from an outsiders point of view to criticise families fearing shame bought on them but we do not live in a society where if you or your family do something that is considered immoral it will have a huge impact on the whole family in many cultures it does it is not that simple as families that love their children do not think this way unfortunately many do as it is so ingrained within their culture. That is not to excuse any violence but the fear of being shamed and being ostracized is very powerful and this is what keeps many locked in this cycle of oppression that is passed on from generation to generation

It happens in sectors of society where women are considered "chattels" ie of the same status as possessions, and are repressed. Where women are not considered of the same value as men, or with the same rights to life and liberty.

Yes, it is very easy to criticise Freudian. You criticise, or you collude with it. There's no middle ground.