Honour Killings

Arts & Culture Culture, Arts, Literature & Linguistics
1

Sikh father guilty of death plot

Kalvinder Dosanjh had denied three charges of soliciting murder
A Sikh father has been found guilty of hiring a hitman to carry out the honour killing of his daughter, her Jewish boyfriend, and the boyfriend’s father.
Kalvinder Dosanjh was convicted of three charges of soliciting murder and possessing a prohibited weapon.

Jurors reached an 11-1 majority verdict at the Old Bailey.

Dosanjh, 51, of Higham Road, Wainscott, Rochester, Kent, felt disgraced when his daughter Sanjit, 23, moved in with Temple Jazac, 43, the court heard.

A hitman had been under orders to shoot Mr Jazac’s father and then gun down the couple when they came out of hiding to attend the funeral, the court was told.

But the hitman turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Dosanjh was arrested with a sawn-off shotgun in his van after promising to pay £10,000 for each killing.

It was later that Dosanjh found he had targeted Malcolm Calver by mistake, thinking that he was Mr Jazac’s father.

The court was told Dosanjh had decided they must die to save the family’s honour.

Mr Dosanjh’s accomplice Jagjit Singh Rai, 53, a businessman from Goodmayes Avenue in Ilford, Essex, had already pleaded guilty to three counts of soliciting murder and possession of a prohibited weapon.

2

nice to know it’s not just Muslims doing this in the name of “Islam” :rolleyes:

3

it's interesting how they said "Sikh father" in the title - identifying the religion. i guess to make it newsworthy, they had to emphasize that the perpetrator was a non-muslim, otherwise it would not be surprising at all.

4

^What about hindus who have the practice of wives burning themselves to death after there husbands die?
I bet you this has been much more prevalent than honour killings in islam.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elahi: *
^What about hindus who have the practice of wives burning themselves to death after there husbands die?
I bet you this has been much more prevalent than honour killings in islam.
[/QUOTE]

hmm....totally irrelevant to the thread. however, i will address your query.

you are referring to Sati, which became popular during the muslim invasions. rajput women would immolate themselves to avoid being "dishonoured" (raped as a slave) by the invaders. there is a difference between a woman voluntarily immolating herself to preserve her own honor, and a girl getting her head chopped off by her father or brother to preserve his 'honor' (for offenses as minor as speaking to a boy, cooking poorly, or even being raped). Comparing the two practices is beyond idiotic. one is suicide, the other is murder.

in any case, Sati is virtually non-existent in India. from the BBC:

[quote]
"Cases of sati are very rare; the last high-profile incident was in 1987 in Rajasthan."
[/quote]

[quote]
"Horrendously, the five known cases of sati in the last **21 years **were witnessed by a huge crowd of villagers."
[/quote]

[quote]
"About 40 cases **of sati have occurred since India's independence, i.e, **50 years."
[/quote]

You are most likely confusing Sati with "bride-burning" (related to dowry). Sadly, this is still quite common. however it has no connection to religion and is equally common amongst Indian Muslims and Sikhs. If you really wish to make the comparison, bride-burning cases are less frequent, per capita, in India than honor killings are in Pakistan alone. i don't know the figures for any other countries, but they are probably worse than Pak.

regardless, my original point was simply that it was interesting that the BBC emphasized the religion of the father in that article's headline (because it is unorthodox journalism). no need to get defensive.

6

LOL, sounds 2 me like you are defensive, whats with the 2 page response?
"Honor killings" are cultural and unrelated to islam, they happen in India just like they happen in Pakistan.

[QUOTE]
If you really wish to make the comparison, bride-burning cases are less frequent, per capita, in India than honor killings are in Pakistan alone.
[/QUOTE]

Good one buddy, thats sure something to be proud of.

Also, I routinely here about cases in India where a lower cast hindu women are raped and killed by men of higher castes, sounds like another spin on honour killings to me.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by nikhil25: *

hmm....totally irrelevant to the thread. however, i will address your query.

you are referring to Sati, which became popular during the muslim invasions. rajput women would immolate themselves to avoid being "dishonoured" (raped as a slave) by the invaders. there is a difference between a woman voluntarily immolating herself to preserve her own honor, and a girl getting her head chopped off by her father or brother to preserve his 'honor' (for offenses as minor as speaking to a boy, cooking poorly, or even being raped). Comparing the two practices is beyond idiotic. one is suicide, the other is murder.

in any case, Sati is virtually non-existent in India. from the BBC:

You are most likely confusing Sati with "bride-burning" (related to dowry). Sadly, this is still quite common. however it has no connection to religion and is equally common amongst Indian Muslims and Sikhs. If you really wish to make the comparison, bride-burning cases are less frequent, per capita, in India than honor killings are in Pakistan alone. i don't know the figures for any other countries, but they are probably worse than Pak.

regardless, my original point was simply that it was interesting that the BBC emphasized the religion of the father in that article's headline (because it is unorthodox journalism). no need to get defensive.
[/QUOTE]

:D

Where did you learn your history from Nikhil? Shiv Senha 101? :D

If the Muslims were so powerful (able to rape widowed women), why would they go after already married ones? Why not nice, ripe and wonderful virgins?

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *

:D

Where did you learn your history from Nikhil? Shiv Senha 101? :D

If the Muslims were so powerful (able to rape widowed women), why would they go after already married ones? Why not nice, ripe and wonderful virgins?
[/QUOTE]

Lajawab, not that I'm saying what nikhil said is true, unfortunately I am not as familliar with the political history of Islam as I should be to comment on that particular aspect of it, but I just want to make a general comment about what you said. Rape is not about sex and attractiveness and such, that only young girls are more desirable over older women. Rape is more about power and control. Taking any woman that "belongs" to a man, she be a sister, mother, daughter, wife etc., is a sign of "victory." Rape happens to ** every ** woman, regardless of age, race, social status, bank account balance, etc.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sara516: *

Lajawab, not that I'm saying what nikhil said is true, unfortunately I am not as familliar with the political history of Islam as I should be to comment on that particular aspect of it, but I just want to make a general comment about what you said. Rape is not about sex and attractiveness and such, that only young girls are more desirable over older women. Rape is more about power and control. Taking any woman that "belongs" to a man, she be a sister, mother, daughter, wife etc., is a sign of "victory." Rape happens to ** every ** woman, regardless of age, race, social status, bank account balance, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Muslims were in enough power in India to rape every woman between the ages of 55 and 5 whther married, single or divorced...They were powerful enough to change the name of India to Islamistan, to annihilate every non-Muslim, to destroy every temple, to kill everyone unchallenged...

Question arises about where we get our history from...If we were to read history from the most learned of historians from when the Muslims were in charge, we'll se that the Muslim era in India was the golden period of Indian civilization, and it was the Muslims who brought science, architecture, arts, literature and science to India...What was in India before that?

Today's Indian historians like Francois Gautier and others, who have a penchant for anti-Islamism and Muslims, will paint a bloody picture...These men are neither literate nor did they live in that time...Their distorted and sickening version of history means nothing...

But guys like Nikhil seem to believe them more than those people that actually lived under Muslim rule and actually represent true history and the grandeur that was the Muslim rule...

10

:smack:

Please, try to read my post again, especially the first sentences. I was not commenting on nikhils interpretation of Islamic history, rather a comment you made. I am not saying that he was right or wrong, but go back and read what I wrote.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elahi: *
LOL, sounds 2 me like you are defensive, whats with the 2 page response?
"Honor killings" are cultural and unrelated to islam, they happen in India just like they happen in Pakistan.

Good one buddy, thats sure something to be proud of.

Also, I routinely here about cases in India where a lower cast hindu women are raped and killed by men of higher castes, sounds like another spin on honour killings to me.
[/QUOTE]
nice to see you've abandoned your first point and moved on to a different but equally weak one.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *

Muslims were in enough power in India to rape every woman between the ages of 55 and 5 whther married, single or divorced...They were powerful enough to change the name of India to Islamistan, to annihilate every non-Muslim, to destroy every temple, to kill everyone unchallenged...
[/quote]
they came pretty damn close didn't they? ...or at least tried.

but seriously, who taught you this? madrassah fantasies are one thing - reality is another.
[quote]
Question arises about where we get our history from...If we were to read history from the most learned of historians from when the Muslims were in charge, we'll se that the Muslim era in India was the golden period of Indian civilization, and it was the Muslims who brought science, architecture, arts, literature and science to India...What was in India before that?
[/quote]

lol, please. which historians are these? because virtually every single Western and Indian historian of repute has come to the conclusion of unrivaled barbarism on the part of the mughals. that hardly justifies the gifts of chicken mughalai and taj mahal.
[quote]
Today's Indian historians like Francois Gautier and others, who have a penchant for anti-Islamism and Muslims, will paint a bloody picture...These men are neither literate nor did they live in that time...Their distorted and sickening version of history means nothing...

[/QUOTE]
sneaky sneaky....indian historians? i don't think so. regardless, try "all non-pakistani historians". seriously, do some research.

anyways, this is all wholly irrelevant to the thread topic. it is unfortunate that the insecurity of a few has totally derailed this thread. how this Lajawab character can turn a thread about a Sikh in the UK killing his daughter into a debate about Mughal rule in medieval India in about one post is absolutely beyond me.

12

reminds himself to stay away from sikhnis

13

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ranjhan: *
*reminds himself to stay away from sikhnis
[/QUOTE]

With their whole no-removing body hair thing, why would you want to get that close to a sikhni? :D

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *

With their whole no-removing body hair thing, why would you want to get that close to a sikhni? :D
[/QUOTE]

But isnt that just for Sikh men? Surely the women can remove hair?

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Neely: *

But isnt that just for Sikh men? Surely the women can remove hair?
[/QUOTE]

i think it's women as well..ihave friends who have very very very very very very long hair...and also they're supposd to cover their hair as well , justlike us :)

16

I wasnt necessarily thinking about hair on the head if u see what I mean.

Surely that cant be right that their women cant remove hair.

17

Maddy is right, they are suppose to leave their bodies natural, no haircuts, shaves or piercing, I don't agree with it though because if you go by that logic we ought to leave our nails and umbilical cords alone too, not to mention women with hairy legs, facial hair and bushy armpits don't sound very tempting but hey it's their religion and we should respect it.

I was actually thinking of non-amritdhari Sikhni's, or modern amritdhari Sikhni’s, I know so many Sikh guys who can't wait to go to away to uni so that they can have a haircut and shave, I assume a lot of Sikhni's are the same.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sara516: *
i think it's women as well..ihave friends who have very very very very very very long hair...and also they're supposd to cover their hair as well , justlike us :)
[/QUOTE]

Long hair on the head is have very very very very very very sexy, I don't like girls with all the lunday pachunday bleached hair.

19

No intention of disrespecting anyones belief but I didnt know about this. Do the women actually follow this and never remove such hair????

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Neely: *
No intention of disrespecting anyones belief but I didnt know about this. Do the women actually follow this and never remove such hair????
[/QUOTE]

i know tons of Sikh girls and not one of them keeps body hair. when half of all Sikh guys are either clean-shaven or trim their beard, do you really think the women would be strict adherents? i don't think so.