"But the court slashed the verdict by half and changed the charge from premeditated murder to a misdemeanor 'because the defendant killed his sister in a fit of rage,' in line with Article 98 of the penal code, the daily said."
From AFP, with thanks to Fjordman:
AMMAN -- A Jordanian who killed his divorced sister over rumors that she had a lover was cleared of premeditated murder because he acted in a "fit of rage," after his family dropped charges, the Jordan Times reported Thursday.The verdict was handed down Wednesday, five months after the 19-year-old university student shot to death his 22-year-old sister, 10 minutes after he was told that she had a lover out of wedlock, it said, quoting court papers.
The student, whose name was not disclosed, received a three-month jail sentence and walked free for time already served.
"The 10-minute interval between hearing of his sister's immoral actions and meeting her face-to-face is proof that he did not plot the murder," a court statement said.
The young man had turned himself in to the police after the murder claiming that he acted to "cleanse the family's honor" and initially received a six-month prison sentence.
But the court slashed the verdict by half and changed the charge from premeditated murder to a misdemeanor "because the defendant killed his sister in a fit of rage," in line with Article 98 of the penal code, the daily said.
It also argued that the "victim brought disgrace to her family and the defendant and tarnished their honor [because] her actions were against religion and social norms" in the conservative Muslim country.
The court said that it also opted for a reduced sentence "because his family dropped the charges against him and because he is a student."
Medical sources quoted by the Jordan Times, however, said that an autopsy performed on the victim after the murder showed that the woman had not been sexually active before she was killed.
But the court countered: "It is possible the victim had changed her clothes ... before she was killed to hide evidence that would show she was engaged in an illegitimate affair."...
Jordan's parliament has twice rejected proposed changes to the penal code that would impose harsher sentences on "honor killers," despite campaigns by human rights activists.
How would changing her clothes cover up the appearance that she'd just had sex, thereby countering the autopsy? Autopsies not really that invasive in Jordan, I see. Presumably one can tell everything about a victim from the state of her clothes and the brand of ashes dropped by a cigarette at the scene? Ah, clever Holmes they are down Jordan's way.
Geoff
She was wearing a dress she had borrowed from Monica Lewinsky. Stains were introduced as evidence.
Mother Ecclesiastica,
I disagree strongly! King Abdullah of Jordan has maintained the peace with Israel and has protected Jordan's Christians as much as he can. He even refers to himself as a "half-Christian" out of respect for his Christian mother. Muslims are better off living under monarchs like Abdullah or the late Shah of Iran rather than under democracies like Bush has brought to Iraq or Israel brought to the "West Bank" and Gaza. Give Muslims democracy and you get Sharia.
As for the court's ruling, it seems to be based on western reasoning rather than Muslim. An Islamic court would have simply acquitted the young man for acting on honour. I suspect that in the US or most of Europe, he would have been found to be suffering "temporary insanity" due to his "rage" and sent to a mental hospital. Then after a year or so, a government doctor would determine he'd calmed down and released him. His "religion" would be irrelevant.
Miscarriages of justice like this happen all the time in the West. Interestingly, a century ago, it was the prosecution that tried to prove insanity in order to get the death penalty imposed. The reasoning was that a sane person could repent but a madman was beyond hope and thus should be executed. All that changed when the court systems recognized the modern science of psychology. So I suspect that the Jordanian court's ruling has less to do with Islam and is more based on its colonial heritage of British law.
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who saith unto us, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Well, all I can say is, based on what happened, she surely deserved to be killed. Thank God the Jordanians understand how severely the brother was provoked.
Why on earth would he believe his sister? It was so much more important to believe the rumor and act immediately so there would be no more hanky panky.
It is well known that allah is so impotent that he cannot punish wrongdoers himself; he needs his human slaves to do all his dirty work.
Even though I'm familiar w/the story, I misread it: "A Jordanian who divorced his sister".. Which is, if not factually accurate, psychologically true.
This story illustrates how dysfunctional and violent Muslim societies are, even the so-called modern and moderate Jordan. If I were another sister or female cousin of the murderer, I would be very careful as I served him hot coffee or overbaked chicken. He obviously has huge anger management problems that no one, his family or the society that produced him, wants to address.
The family probably celebrated him with a "Thank you for being a true believer" party...
In Islam honor killings are, well, honorable....
strange people indeed...
A misdemeanor. As if he had been caught littering.
I disagree with Provoslavni, though I can understand his argument. The "court," in slashing the sentence, grounded its decision on the "fact" (nowhere actually established, except in the fevered Islamic fantasies of the judges and the defendant) that the victim had "brought disgrace to her family and the defendant and tarnished their honor [because] her actions were against religion and social norms." Her supposed behavior was the basis for the defendant's ever-so-banal male Muslim rage, not insanity. In other words, he was acting quite normally.
The short version? She deserved what she got.
"I disagree strongly! King Abdullah of Jordan has maintained the peace with Israel and has protected Jordan's Christians as much as he can. He even refers to himself as a "half-Christian" out of respect for his Christian mother. "
that is an insult for christian people.
"Muslims are better off living under monarchs like Abdullah or the late Shah of Iran rather than under democracies like Bush has brought to Iraq or Israel brought to the "West Bank" and Gaza."
since when we care about what happens to the muslims?
StillFedUp asked "since when we care about what happens to the muslims?"
We care that the basic impulses of Islam are restrained. Democracy is the worst thing that can be given to fanatics. The US was foolish to bring democracy to Iraq and Israel was stupid to bring it to the West Bank/Gaza. Right now, King Abdullah is about the only thing blocking a takeover by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood extremists who have a majority in Jordan's parliament.
Remember, Al-Qaida blew up the Amman Hotel because they thought Abdullah was going to be at the targeted wedding reception. That the Islamists want him dead, does say something positive about him.
"We care that the basic impulses of Islam are restrained."
correction, we care that they are RESTRAINED completely, not their "basic impulses".
"The US was foolish to bring democracy to Iraq and Israel was stupid to bring it to the West Bank/Gaza. "
that serves to the purpose of showing the fool idiots what those people are. Do you really think someone gives 2 shits about democracy for paleosimians?
"Right now, King Abdullah is about the only thing blocking a takeover by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood extremists who have a majority in Jordan's parliament. "
what do I care about one idiot king when 99% of population still believes in muslim superiority?
On polls of "how much you hate the west" jordan rates high as much as any other muslim country. What's the difference?
"Remember, Al-Qaida blew up the Amman Hotel because they thought Abdullah was going to be at the targeted wedding reception. That the Islamists want him dead, does say something positive about him. "
we should celebrate any damage done to any muslim. I don't care about the inner "political" meaning of the explosion.
There is no positivity in muslims.
He believes in muslim superiority too and is probably ashamed of being born out of a christian woman. It is what happens in unfortunate cases in the maghreb. Children at school learn from teachers to say "your mother is christian so you are the son of a beast".
Do you think conditions for christians in jordan are "better" because this twat is "half-christian"?
You cannot be half-muslim and half-christian. As much as you cannot be half-nazi.
This is the situation in "moderate" jordan
According to the constitution, Islam is the state religion; religious practices that conflict with the official interpretation of Shari'a are prohibited.
In January 2006, a Shari'a court received a complaint for apostasy against a convert from Islam to Christianity.
Members of unrecognized religious groups and converts from Islam face legal discrimination and bureaucratic difficulties in personal status cases. Converts from Islam additionally risk the loss of civil rights. Shari'a courts have the authority to prosecute proselytizers.
Adherents of unrecognized religions and Muslims who convert to other faiths face societal discrimination.
The Druze face official discrimination but do not complain of social discrimination. Baha'is face both official and social discrimination. On national identity cards, which normally identify the bearer's religious community, the Government records Druzes as Muslims, and indicates no religion for Baha'is. The Baha'i community does not have its own court to adjudicate personal status and family matters; such cases are heard in Shari'a courts. The Government does not officially recognize the Druze temple in Azraq, and four social halls belonging to the Druze are registered as "societies." The Government does not permit Baha'is to register schools or places of worship.
Because Shari'a law governs the personal status of Muslims, converting from Islam to Christianity and proselytism of Muslims are not allowed. Muslims who convert to another religion face societal and governmental discrimination. The Government does not recognize the legality of such conversions. Under Shari'a, converts are regarded as apostates and may be denied their civil and property rights. In the past, this principle has not been applied, but during the last reporting period a convert to Christianity was found guilty of apostasy and stripped of many of his civil rights.
In January and February 2006, Jihad Al-Momani, former chief editor of the weekly newspaper Shihan, and Hussein Al-Khalidi, of the weekly Al Mihar, were arrested, released, and then re-arrested for printing controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Although released, the two journalists each face charges of "defaming the Prophet Muhammad" which is punishable by up to three months imprisonment; and additional charges of "insulting God" which carries a maximum sentence of three years.
Shari'a is applied in all matters relating to family law involving Muslims or the children of a Muslim father, and all citizens, including non-Muslims, are subject to Islamic legal provisions regarding inheritance. According to the law, all minor children of male citizens who convert to Islam are considered to be Muslim. Adult children of a male Christian who has converted to Islam become ineligible to inherit from their father if they do not also convert to Islam. In cases in which a Muslim converts to Christianity the conversion is not recognized legally by the authorities, and the individual continues to be treated as a Muslim in matters of family and property law.
Atheists must associate themselves with a recognized religion for purposes of official identification.
The Government traditionally reserves some positions in the upper levels of the military for Christians (4 percent); however, all senior command positions have been held by Muslims. Division-level commanders and above are required to lead Islamic prayer on certain occasions.
Editorial cartoons, articles and opinion pieces critical of Israel and Israeli politics were frequently published in the local press.
The majority of the population views religion as central to one's personal identity. Muslims who convert to other religions often face social ostracism, threats, and abuse from their families and Muslim religious leaders. Parents usually strongly discourage young adults from pursuing interfaith romantic relationships, because they may lead to conversion. Such relationships may lead to ostracism and, in some cases, violence against the couple or feuds between members of the couple's families. When such situations arise, families may approach local government officials for resolution. In the past, there were reports that in some cases local government officials encouraged Christian women involved in relationships with Muslim men to convert to Islam to defuse potential family or tribal conflict and keep the peace
---------------------------------
GEE WHAT A WONDERFUL PICTURE!!!
StillFedUp said
Because then we can send billions in aid (jizya) to the idiot king to maintain his toehold on power. Because then we cannot act against terrorists in the idiot kings kingdom, since he is another one of our "strong allies" in the "war on terror". Because then we can pretend that Jordan is "on our side", even if it is only one idiot king on our side, if even that.
For an example of how much return on investment we get from propping up these dictators, see Iran. Or Iraq, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia.
I agree with Marwan'sDaughter, the argument is understandable, but disagreeable.
He initially received a SIX-MONTH sentence when he was charged with premediated MURDER? Ridiculous, even before the sentence was halved. The other ridiculous thing is whether the truth or falsity surrounding her sexual behavior should make a difference. Even if she screwed the entire Jordanian Olympic soccer team, she didn't deserve death.
StillFedUp,
Re: "since when we care about what happens to the muslims?" & King Abdullah.
First of all, the only people I really care about in the Middle East are the Christians and to a lesser extent Jews, Zoroastrians, Sabeans, Mandeans, Yezidis, and othe non-Muslim religions whom I see as potential allies to the Christians.
Jordan is 4% Christian (some of them my personal friends)and when I wrote:
"Right now, King Abdullah is about the only thing blocking a takeover by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood extremists who have a majority in Jordan's parliament."
You responded: "what do I care about one idiot king when 99% of population still believes in muslim superiority?" so you obviously don't care if the muslims are set free to slaughter the Christians. Well I DO CARE that the Christians are safe.
When I wrote: "The US was foolish to bring democracy to Iraq and Israel was stupid to bring it to the West Bank/Gaza."
You replied: "that serves to the purpose of showing the fool idiots what those people are. Do you really think someone gives 2 shits about democracy for paleosimians?"
Obviously George Bush and Ehud Olmert do! And that was my criticism. Muslims do not need democracy. The only Palestinians who deserve the vote are the Christians. They're the only real Palestinians anyway. The Muslims should be expelled from Israel AND Palestine (i.e. Judea, Samaria and Gaza)!
I resist anyone who opposes Christendom and persecutes the Church, whether it was the atheists of the former Soviet bloc or the jihadists of the ummah. No difference! The fight against the Christians so I fight against them. In that fight, I'll take any ally I can.
a three-month jail sentence, wow who said that crime didnt pay...
Well, it appears that mercy killing is not as bad as straight out murder, and of course the so called lover is let off after all he is a man.
It is so sad to see that there is no love for ones sisters or brothers..a land without love is sad...
Her actions had tarnished their honor [because] her actions were against religion and social norms" in the conservative Muslim country.
WHAT a conservative Muslim country, goodness what would an extremist muslim country do... scary thought
"Hier sent 25,000 signed petitions . . ."
This might be off topic, but I don't care. The level of American writing is sinking to the depths where it sometimes cannot be understood.
I think that this sentence should be "Heir sent a petition with 25,000 signatures . . ."
If it was 25,000 signed petitions, how many signatures were on each petition?
I also once heard a talking head news reader call it a partition.