Yesterday, a 25-year-old pregnant woman was murdered by her own family.
Farzana Iqbal was standing outside Pakistan’s High Court in the eastern city of Lahore, when she was attacked by a group of 12 men.
Farzana was beaten with sticks and had bricks hurled at her head by the attackers; who included her father, two brothers and her former fiance.
Farzana was rushed to hospital, where tragically doctors were unable to save her life following the horrific head injuries she had sustained.
Her family will not mourn her passing because they were the reason it came to be.
Farzana’s family claim to have killed her in the name of ‘honour’.
But the truth is, Farzana died because she married for love.
Exact figures differ substantially because the Pakistani Government doesn’t concern itself with collecting official statistics about events like this. Human rights and advocacy groups record around 1000 Pakistani women being killed each year in honour killings but suspect that the actual figure is much higher.
Most honour killings involve women who have either engaged in premarital sexual relations or refused to comply with an arranged marriage; which is the norm among conservative Pakistani families and what occurred in Farzana’s case.
Farzana Iqbal, formerly Farzana Parveen, was engaged to her cousin but chose to marry another man, Mohammed Iqbal, against her family’s wishes.
Farzarna’s family responded to her marriage by filing a kidnapping case against her husband. She was in court on the day she died, giving evidence in her husband’s defence, explaining that she had married him according to her own free will.
In Pakistan, few honour killings ever result in a conviction for the murderers. In this case, the killers fled the scene and escaped; it is unlikely the local police authorities will devote any serious time to tracking them down.
The one killer who did remain at the scene was Farzana’s father, who will likely also remain a free man. You see, Pakistani law permits a woman’s family to nominate someone to carry out an honour killing on their behalf and then forgive them.
Undoubtedly, Farzana’s father’s barbaric view of justice will mean he is completely at peace with his violent actions and able to forgive himself.
Humanity Healing International and its partner in Pakistan, Hope Development Organization, are standing up for the women and girls of Pakistan to wipe out the stain of “honour” killings. Show your support for their local and international stand against honour killings by signing their petition to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navanethem Pillay, by clicking here.
Top Comments
This story needs to be updated as horrific new information has come to light. This poor woman was killed by her father and her brothers and some other people for marrying someone against their wishes. However, the man she married killed his first wife so that he could marry her!!! Seems like if her family hadn't killed her, her husband might have killed her a few years down the track when he got tired of her, like he did his first wife!!
The husband of Farzana Parveen, informed CNN he killed his first wife so he could marry Parveen!!!!!
The first wife was killed six years ago.
"I wanted to send a proposal to Farzana, so I killed my wife," Mohammad Iqbal said
Zulfiqar Hameed, district inspector general for the Punjab police, said Iqbal's son from the first marriage reported to the police That Mohammed Iqbal had killed his first wife.
Iqbal. served only a year in jail for killing his first wife because his son forgave him!!!
Parveen, 25, and Iqbal eloped and were married January 7.
The family had legally disputed Parveen's marriage to Iqbal and , accused him of abducting her.
One family member made a noose around her neck while her brothers smashed bricks into her skull,
her husband Iqbal witnessed the attack but was held back.
Police have arrested Parveen's father. Parveen's father has admitted to the killing and expressed no regret.
."
The number of honor killings is very likely much higher than studies show because many families don't report the killings, and the killers often avoid prosecution.
Under an Islamic Pakistani law, known as the law of Diyat, the family of a victim is allowed to forgive the perpetrator.
"blood money" is also part of criminal law in Pakistan.
In certain cases, when both parties agree to reach a financial settlement, the court can take the settlement into consideration instead of jail time. Also, the courts can order financial reparations instead of imprisonment,
According to a report published in April by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 869 women in that country were victims of honor killings in 2013
Honor-based violence has been reported in countries such as Iraq, iran, Uganda, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States,
People may critcise America, Canda, England, Australia/NZ and France but I would rather spread the western way of living throughout the world where basic human rights are upheld. Its certainly not perfect but these type of abhorent acts are not tolerated. Islam and all that comes with it is worse than any sect in the world. Even those who live in western countries that wear hijabs. Its all a form of domination of women. None of it should be tolerated (and before we start picking apart Christianity...I agree its messed up too). It should be banned all around the world!!
Christianity and Islam vary vastly in their teachings, but most people don't take the time to compare and contrast the two religions.
When people criticise islam , people come back with "Oh but what about violence in the bible. however there are difference between violence in the bible and violence in Islamic teachings as explained below.
Dr. Mark Durie is vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Caulfield, Melbourne, Australia. He is fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the author of Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam.
What does the Bible teach about violence? Some critics make the case for a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam, claiming that the Bible is no less violent than the Qur’an.1 Certainly the conquest of Canaan, as described in the Bible, was a bloody one. Some cities like Jericho were put to the sword.
Isn’t it dangerous to have such material in the Bible? Might not these stories incite Christians to acts of bloodshed or even genocide against others? The answer to this question is a very emphatic “No!”
There are a number of reasons why the conquest of Canaan, and other stories of conflict in the Bible, do not incite Christians into violent acts of insurrection, murder, and genocide.
One is that the account of the conquest of Canaan was entirely situation-specific. Yes, there is a divine instruction reported in the Bible to take the land by force and occupy it: “you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places” (Num. 33:52). However this was not an eternal permission to believers to wage war.
It was for a specific time and place. According to the Bible, the Canaanites had come under divine judgment because of their religious practices, of which, perhaps, the most offensive example was child sacrifice: “And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you” (Deut. 18:12; see also Gen. 15:16).2
The sacrificing of firstborn children by immolating them before an idol (Deut. 18:10) was a persistent trait of Canaanite religion. The Phoenicians were Canaanites, and as late as the second century B.C., the people of Carthage, a Phoenician colony, were sacrificing children to their goddess Tanit. Archeologists have found charred remains of tens of thousands of newborn infants and fetuses buried in Carthage. The practice of child sacrifice made the Romans despise the Carthaginians.
Although the Old Testament does condone the use of force to purge a land of violence and injustice, the Bible’s attitude to such violence is not that it is sacred or holy. On the contrary, King David, who fought many wars with God’s active support and guidance, was not allowed to be the one to build God’s temple in Jerusalem, because there was so much blood on his hands: “You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood” (1 Chron. 28:3).
The conquest of Canaan was indeed a unique moment in the history of God’s dealings with His people. It prefigured a coming day of restoration when evil would be erased from the face of the earth and peace would come. No serious person can suggest that the warring principles involved in securing the Promised Land are to be practiced by Christians today.
Violence is regarded by the Bible as an inherently evil symptom of the corruption of the whole earth after the Fall: “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). In contrast the prophet Isaiah looked forward to the day when violence would be no more: “Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise” (Isa. 60:18). Astoundingly, and in absolute contrast to the earlier kings of Israel, Isaiah describes the Lord’s anointed as unacquainted with violence: “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth” (Isa. 53:9). This prophecy, of course, reaches its fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.3
The key question for Christians is “What did Jesus have to do with violence?” When we turn to consider Jesus and His followers, we find a systematic rejection of religious violence. Jesus’ message was that His Kingdom would be spiritual and not political. Jesus explicitly and repeatedly condemned the use of force to achieve His goals: “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).
As Jesus goes to the cross, He renounces force, even at the cost of His own life: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).4
Jesus’ take on violence was reinforced by the apostles Paul and Peter, who urged Christians to show consideration to their enemies, renouncing personal retaliation and revenge, living peaceably, returning cursing with blessing, and showing humility to others (Rom. 12:14-21; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:20-24).5
If only Christians had maintained this New Testament position down the centuries, the world would have been a better place. The invention of “Christendom” in the fourth Christian century, and the later influence of a centuries-long struggle against the Islamic jihad, ultimately led Christians to develop aberrant theologies which regarded warfare against non-Christians as “holy” and soldiers who died fighting in such wars were regarded as “martyrs.” Thankfully this view of warfare has been universally denounced in the modern era as incompatible with the gospel of Christ.
The New Testament’s teachings on the state continue to sustain the more than 300 million believers who live in over 60 nations where Christians are persecuted. In none of these countries has persecution resulted in Christian terrorism or violent Christian insurgencies aimed at overthrowing civil authorities. On the contrary, China’s 70 million Christians remain loyal to their nation and government, despite 50 years of the most intense oppression. In Nepal it is the Maoists who have been engaging in terrorism, not the half a million indigenous Christians.
The example of the IRA, so often cited as “Christian terrorists,” actually proves our point, because its ideology was predominately Marxist and atheistic. Unlike modern-day jihadists, who constantly quote the Qur’an in their public statements, the IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the peaceful teachings of Jesus of Nazareth!