Honor-killing murder trial starting in Arizona

[Gravekeeper]

I think the major difference between the three Abrahamic religions is how they are being practiced currently. Both Judaism and Christianity have been around for far longer and due to this have been able to go through a growth period.

Ehhh, no, not quite. Jesus is considered to be a prophet of Allah. One of several ( with Adam of Adam and Eve fame being the first ). Mohammed is considered to be the last prophet Allah sent after Jesus. So technically Islam is, in their view, working from God's most recent blog post.

The "teenage years" you refer to have little to do with Islam and everything to do with the social and cultural situations in the countries you're referring too. Which are, by western standards, unprogressive. Much as honour killing is not a religious issue but a cultural one.

Again, this is the problem. Islam gets painted with a very wide brush for the actions of a very very small group which the media loves to fixate upon in the US. Yes, Iran is one of a handful of truely hardline Islamic countries. It also only makes up about 4% of the total Muslim population in the world. It's also, politically and socially, pretty fucking backwards. Places such as Afghanistan were the Taliban are make up a scant 1.8% of the total Muslim population in the world. It's pretty obviously fucked up at the moment. Egypt too is, or rather was, basically a dictatorship with a fantastically shitty human rights record that has little to do with Islam. And yes, they do legislate in line with Islamic law, however, their constitution does not allow for the forming of political parties with a religious agenda. But again, their government is, or was at this point, basically a big smoke up your ass dictatorship.

The majority of Muslims actually live in Asia, not the Middle East. The most populous Muslim countries in the world are ones like Indonesia and Bangladesh. Which should be noted are a presidential republic and a democracy respectively.

Also, I already mentioned the Hadith. They're basically a bunch of things Mohammad supposedly said that only a few people agree with and even amongst them no one really agrees upon.

So once again, this is a cultural problem. Religion is, as always, just a convenient excuse for being the dicks they already were to begin with. -.-

[FArchivist]

I'd have to disagree. The penalty for renouncing the Islamic faith is death. I know of no other major religion that takes such a hard line towards apostates.

Catholicism. The penalty for heresy under canon law is either a) recant or b) die. It's still in effect. Supposedly, as a good Catholic I should be accosting Baptists, asking them to recant their Protestant heresies, and on their refusal, executing them.

But enough of that. Actually, Islam does NOT demand death for apostasy. As per Wikipedia:

While the Qur'an states that apostates will be punished by God, Islamic scholarship differs on the earthly punishment for apostasy, ranging from death to no punishment at all.

[KitterCat]

Catholicism. The penalty for heresy under canon law is either a) recant or b) die. It's still in effect. Supposedly, as a good Catholic I should be accosting Baptists, asking them to recant their Protestant heresies, and on their refusal, executing them.

Currently no you don’t. In the past you did, but not in present day times. Take a look at the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The rules have changed so that it pretty much only applies to Catholics and their excommunicated, not killed. The Catholic rules are constantly changing. It’s a bit annoying really.

[tabbyblack13]

I just heard the father was convicted on second degree murder. Here is the story http://www.kpho.com/news/26950254/detail.html.

[IDrinkaRum]

Father convicted of second-degree murder for running over his daughter & also convicted of aggravated assault for injuring the boyfriend's mother

The father said it was an accident. He only wanted to spit @ the mother of the boyfriend, but instead accidentlly hit the mother & ran over & killed his daughter.

At the end of the article, it was mentioned that the father had fled first to Mexico and then in London, where he was detained and then returned to the United States. If it was an accident, why would he have fled?

[draco664]

If it was an accident, why would he have fled?

Ah, the old "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument.

If that were true there would be no need for an Innocence Project.

I'm not suggesting that the arsehole in question was innocent, but a blanket statement like that is naive when there are prosecutors willing to secure convictions at any cost, police who manufacture evidence and unjust laws on the books.

[HYHYBT]

...and also people who panic in an emergency, and then, if they realize later that they shouldn't have run, think they've already ruined their chances by doing so.

[Andara Bledin]

If it was an accident, why would he have fled?

Check the statistics sometime on people who flee something as simple as a traffic stop. Some astonishingly high number of them have no reason to do so; no warrants, no previous record, and nothing on them that could lead to one.

^-.-^

[EmiOfBrie]

Here is why he should be charged for murder:

He simply tried to enforce HIS religious beliefs on someone else (his daughter). That is against the Constitution. Yes, the penalty for renouncing Islam in the more extreme sects is death, but once she had renounced Islam, she was no longer a Muslim and therefore (in the USA) no longer subject to its laws.

Her death was an attempt to force Islam back on her, which is against the law as well. Therefore no matter how you Constitutionally slice it, it was murder.

[draco664]

Here is why he should be charged for murder:

He simply tried to enforce HIS religious beliefs on someone else (his daughter). That is against the Constitution. Yes, the penalty for renouncing Islam in the more extreme sects is death, but once she had renounced Islam, she was no longer a Muslim and therefore (in the USA) no longer subject to its laws.

Her death was an attempt to force Islam back on her, which is against the law as well. Therefore no matter how you Constitutionally slice it, it was murder.

Er, what?

I'm not sure if you've read it, but there is only one way an individual can do something 'against' the Constitution, and that is if they engage in slavery. Everything else in the document is a restriction on what the government can do.

He *was* charged with murder (and aggravated assault and 2x leaving the scene of an accident.)

Not because he was trying to force Islam back on anyone, but because he deliberately ran over his daughter with his car and killed her. End of story. It was a criminal act. Nothing Constitutional about it.

He was found guilty of 2nd degree murder, and guilty of the other charges too. Apparently in his state the sentence range for murder 1 and murder 2 are pretty similar, so it's more semantics than anything else. He'll probably never be a free man again.