The girl who was stoned to death for falling in love

In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of honor killings in Iraq and how it has increased since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The practice is seen as a way to restore honor and dignity, but it has been brought to light through the internet and has sparked outrage. The conversation also highlights the lack of tolerance and understanding in Iraqi society, and the potential role of the US in supporting fundamentalist groups in the country.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
...This act of medieval savagery took place last month in a town in northern Iraq, in the fledgling 'democracy' created by Bush and Blair when they invaded the country in 2003 and 'freed' its people.

...The filming of Du'a's death was just one more macabre element of her killing, but it has achieved something those bloodthirsty amateur filmmakers could not have predicted: it has brought such practices into the open and exposed them to the wider world. [continued]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=455400&in_page_id=1879

So, we were going to make this place a democractic society? Did the men throwing the stones and filming with their cell phones vote?

Thanks to the internet, once it gets out, news like this spreads around the world like a wildfire. I suspect that this will act as a greater force for change than any bomb ever could.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is a very common occurrence in fundamentalist Muslim areas. What probably separates this from the thousands that happen a year in other muslim countries is the fact that with new-found freedom, it should happen less than it used to. But until the country becomes stable, the pockets of hardcore fundamentalism will have more ability to harm those who dare exercise their new-found freedom.

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that the annual worldwide total of honor-killing victims may be as high as 5,000 women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
This is a very common occurrence in fundamentalist Muslim areas. What probably separates this from the thousands that happen a year in other muslim countries is the fact that with new-found freedom, it should happen less than it used to. But until the country becomes stable, the pockets of hardcore fundamentalism will have more ability to harm those who dare exercise their new-found freedom.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
Iraq wasn't 'a fundamentalist muslim area' under Saddam :rolleyes:
 
  • #4
It's not just killings. In Pakistan and parts of India women who reject a suitor may be attacked with battery acid, mutilating their faces. That way they are not likely to be married off, and will remain a "burden" on their families (women are not highly prized in some places) while they face social isolation and physical suffering. It's sickening what some peoples' value systems will allow them to do in the name of "honor".
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Art said:
Iraq wasn't 'a fundamentalist muslim area' under Saddam :rolleyes:
It most certainly was. Saddam kept an iron fist on it, but these people didn't move there after Saddam left, they were already there.
 
  • #6
http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Iraq/May05/honour.html [Broken]

May 17, 2005 - (IWPR'S Iraqi Crisis Report No. 125) Faeq Ameen Bakr, director general of Baghdad's Institute of Forensic Medicine in Baghdad, often writes "killed to wash away her disgrace" in the many autopsy reports and investigations that cross his desk.

The number of so-called honour killings - where a woman is killed by family members because they believe she has in some way shamed them - is said to have increased in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is a tribal society where honour killings are an accepted practice, but cases have been increasing because conservative attitudes have grown.

They were there, but Hussein didn't let them run the place by any means. There's a difference between having fundamentalists in an area, and being a fundamentalist area
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Office_Shredder said:
They were there, but Hussein didn't let them run the place by any means. There's a difference between having fundamentalists in an area, and being a fundamentalist area
That's a fair distinction. Now that people in Iraq have a non-existent central government, their tribal and religious affiliations are paramount, and the power of the fundamentalists has increased dramatically. Under Saddam, women had the right to be educated and hold jobs and participate as citizens. This is pretty rare in some Muslim countries.
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
But until the country becomes stable, the pockets of hardcore fundamentalism will have more ability to harm those who dare exercise their new-found freedom.

I think we have more than "pockets" to worry about...which is why we can't get stability.

Apparently security forces were looking on while this happened.
 
  • #9
In order to enjoy the liberties of freedom, a society must first understand tolerance. I think the problem in Iraq is that we have pockets of tolerance.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
In order to enjoy the liberties of freedom, a society must first understand tolerance.
Hear, hear!

Although apparently this is expecting too much.
 
  • #12
This story just made me plain sick. These are probably the most grotesque faces of humanity I have seen to date.
The story begs the question, who's honour is it that they are trying to protect here?
If killing your own daughter, watching her being sexually assaulted and stoned to death restores your dignity or your daughter's, I don't think any amount of liberation or freedom can help .

Postmortem reports by medical "professionals" state "killed to wash away her disgrace", checking for viginity to restore some grace, and a maximum sentence of 6 months if found guilty?! WTF is the matter with these people!

I hope there is a follow up to the article regarding what action was taken against the murderers especially after there is so much irrefutable evidence.
 
  • #13
Goes to show that Iraq's problems are way too deeply imbibed for any force to solve them.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
It most certainly was. Saddam kept an iron fist on it, but these people didn't move there after Saddam left, they were already there.
Actually yes they did move there after Saddam fell. Many had fled to Iran to avoid Saddam and have since returned and others are the foreign fighters who have entered from Saudi Arabia and the like also since the fall of Saddam.

As I said in another thread one wonders if the US are fighting on the right side. The Ba'ath party under a new leader would it seems have been a much better option rather than allowing the Shi'ite fundamentalists to gain power regardless of whether they did it democratically or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
The Shi'ite majority was in place before Saddam fell. The Sunni minority was in place before Saddam fell, though a number of them were forced out of holdings that they were given after the suppression (murder, expatriation, ethnic cleansing) of the Kurds. This is not a simple problem with a simple solution. The Iranians don't want hostile Sunnis on their borders, and the Saudis do not want Shi'ites to control Iraq, and both are exerting influence there. The Bushies loudly decry any Iranian influence, and ignore any Saudi influence on the side of the Sunnis. News by press-release is almost always propaganda and is always misleading, and intentionally so. The practice of "embedding" reporters with military units gives the DOD control over what the journalists see, what they can report on, and ultimately, what we US citizens are allowed to know about the disposition of a war that is not going well.
 
  • #16
Wait for it. We're witnessing a burgeoning New Iran.
 
  • #17
Just to let you guys know, Islam has nothing to do with these types of killings, in fact, it condemns them. They're purely cultural and have existed in Arab/Indian areas for hundreds of years, even before Islam. Yes, adultery is punished with stoning, but that goes for both males and females. I don't think that that was this woman's crime though.

Of course, a lot of ignorant people try to say that this happens only in Muslim countries and so it has to do with Islam somehow. Honour killings also occur a lot with Hindus/Sikhs in India. Also, if you look at other Muslim areas, such as those in Africa and Europe, you'll find that there aren't any.

The media obviously tries to use these honour killings to attack Islam.
 
  • #18
oroboro said:
Just to let you guys know, Islam has nothing to do with these types of killings, in fact, it condemns them. They're purely cultural and have existed in Arab/Indian areas for hundreds of years, even before Islam. Yes, adultery is punished with stoning, but that goes for both males and females. I don't think that that was this woman's crime though.

Of course, a lot of ignorant people try to say that this happens only in Muslim countries and so it has to do with Islam somehow. Honour killings also occur a lot with Hindus/Sikhs in India. Also, if you look at other Muslim areas, such as those in Africa and Europe, you'll find that there aren't any.

The media obviously tries to use these honour killings to attack Islam.

Hopefully these primative practices will never stand the light of day - the world scrutiny made possible by the internet.

Here, we shoot em, hang em, electricute em, inject em, or in the case of adultery in particular, impeach em, but we are civilized about it. :biggrin:
 
  • #19
Just to let you guys know, Islam has nothing to do with these types of killings, in fact, it condemns them.

Their literature might condemn it, but a noticeable percentage of their people don't.

Of course, a lot of ignorant people try to say that this happens only in Muslim countries and so it has to do with Islam somehow. Honour killings also occur a lot with Hindus/Sikhs in India.

And that makes it okay for Muslim countries? Because it happens in India, it makes the fact that it happens in Muslim countries more acceptable?

The media obviously tries to use these honour killings to attack Islam.

No, they do a good job of it themselves. I mean, unless you can prove the media made that story up.

Because when I browse the news, I don't usually hear about Buddhist fundamentalists stoning women to death, flying airplanes into buildings, and finding new ways to kill Americans, Brits and Jews. Nor do I usually see Mormons in Utah waging unending and violent wars with rival religions.

But hey, who knows, you might be right, maybe all of that stuff is the medias fault.
 
  • #20
Dagenais said:
Their literature might condemn it, but a noticeable percentage of their people don't.
Can you give some facts please? How do you know most Muslims don't condemn such actions?

Dagenais said:
And that makes it okay for Muslim countries? Because it happens in India, it makes the fact that it happens in Muslim countries more acceptable?
It seems that you either misread what I wrote or for some reason do not understand. What that means is that honour killings are culturally motivated, not religiously.

Dagenais said:
No, they do a good job of it themselves. I mean, unless you can prove the media made that story up.
I did not say that the media made it up. I don't get how you don't understand what I wrote as I'm sure that it is in perfectly good English. I said that the media uses them to attack Islam, though Islam has nothing to do with it.

Dagenais said:
Because when I browse the news, I don't usually hear about Buddhist fundamentalists stoning women to death, flying airplanes into buildings, and finding new ways to kill Americans, Brits and Jews. Nor do I usually see Mormons in Utah waging unending and violent wars with rival religions.
Obviously you only do know what the media tells you and haven't even bothered to research the facts, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you. All I ask is that you try to understand Islam first before hating it. I though Westerners were supposed to be open minded...

Also note that I'm not trying to justify the murder. All I'm saying is that contrary to common belief, Islam does not subjugate women (actually it tries to protect them). That is fact and can be easily found if one actually studies Islam and does not look at the Muslim world as it is now (as many have deviated quite a bit).

All I wanted to do was clear a common misconception and I'm attacked. I thought those of us in the West were supposed to be tolerant.
 
  • #21
oroboro said:
Can you give some facts please? How do you know most Muslims don't condemn such actions?

Exactly, HOW DO WE KNOW? Because we don't see it! Where is the Muslim outrage? Where is the condemnation by those who practice Islam?? Facts please?


oroboro said:
I did not say that the media made it up. I don't get how you don't understand what I wrote as I'm sure that it is in perfectly good English. I said that the media uses them to attack Islam, though Islam has nothing to do with it.

On the contrary, the media is very silent about Islame extremism. They don't want to "offend" anyone. The rarely point out when something is carried out in the name of Islam in order to appear politically correct.

oroboro said:
I though Westerners were supposed to be open minded...

Open minded, yes, but with this crap we draw the line.

oroboro said:
I thought those of us in the West were supposed to be tolerant.

Tolerant of what, exactly? How can you come on this post and "think" or even suggest that any human being with a sense of humanity is going to tolerate this kind of brutality, inhumanity, intolerant behavior?

Good luck getting sympathy from the Westerners when we see no one stepping into help save this defenseless young womans life.
 
  • #22
drankin said:
Exactly, HOW DO WE KNOW? Because we don't see it! Where is the Muslim outrage? Where is the condemnation by those who practice Islam?? Facts please?
Just because you do not "see", it does not mean that it is out there. Almost all scholars would condemn such an act and many speak out against it. Same thing goes for 9/11. Many Muslims expressed outrage but the media did not bother to put them on the news. Instead, they went for a few radical fools who don't know what they're talking about.

I don't want to get into this further as I can see that it will simply be pointless as it would just continue on forever.

Please, just study what Islam teaches and not those who supposedly practice it. What you are doing is simply looking at the Muslim world in the state that it is in and inferring conclusions. Don't just listen to the media or search for information on the Internet. Try to visit your local mosque (though I cannot guarantee what kind of people you will find there) and ask for some books about Islam.

Islam is not what it seems, and many people, including you, have huge misconceptions about it. The only people that I ever find who do not have these misconceptions are people well versed in history.

Sorry for being hostile in the previous post though.
 
  • #23
I know as a christian I'd hate it if other religions thought Bush's actions typified and represented mainstream christianity which I think is the point oroboro was making.

BTW although this is undoubtedly a vile act I can't help but wonder where is the outrage and condemnation from the 'more civilized' westerners of the dozens of Iraqi (muslim) civilians being killed monthly in the new air campaign being waged in Iraq?
A second U.S. Navy aircraft carrier on station since February in the Persian Gulf has added some 80 warplanes to the U.S. air arsenal in the region.

At the same time, the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from U.S. airstrikes appears to have risen sharply, according to Iraq Body Count, a London-based, anti-war research group that maintains a database compiling news media reports on Iraqi war deaths.

The rate of such reported civilian deaths appeared to climb steadily through 2006, the group reports, averaging just a few a month in early 2006, hitting some 40 a month by year's end, and averaging more than 50 a month so far this year.
but apparently this is okay because
Air Force Col. Gary Crowder, deputy director of the regional air operations center, said such casualties "pale in comparison" with civilian casualties from ground combat.
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/060607/world_20070606025.php [Broken]

To quote an old adage 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or at the very least let's be consistant in our condemnation before adopting a holier than thou attitude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
oroboro said:
Just because you do not "see", it does not mean that it is out there. Almost all scholars would condemn such an act and many speak out against it. Same thing goes for 9/11. Many Muslims expressed outrage but the media did not bother to put them on the news. Instead, they went for a few radical fools who don't know what they're talking about.

I don't want to get into this further as I can see that it will simply be pointless as it would just continue on forever.

Please, just study what Islam teaches and not those who supposedly practice it. What you are doing is simply looking at the Muslim world in the state that it is in and inferring conclusions. Don't just listen to the media or search for information on the Internet. Try to visit your local mosque (though I cannot guarantee what kind of people you will find there) and ask for some books about Islam.

Islam is not what it seems, and many people, including you, have huge misconceptions about it. The only people that I ever find who do not have these misconceptions are people well versed in history.

Sorry for being hostile in the previous post though.

I believe there is some truth to what you are saying. But I don't believe the Muslim community is trying very hard to be heard. If they wanted too, they could do something and the media would listen. There is no way the media would ignore a peace march (for example) by American Muslims that was specifically against terrorism. Which makes us wonder if a majority of the Muslim community silently sympathizes with terrorism.
 
  • #25
Art said:
I know as a christian I'd hate it if other religions thought Bush's actions typified and represented mainstream christianity which I think is the point oroboro was making.

BTW although this is undoubtedly a vile act I can't help but wonder where is the outrage and condemnation of the dozens of Iraqi civilians being killed monthly in the new air campaign being waged in Iraq? but apparently this is okay because http://www.theeagle.com/stories/060607/world_20070606025.php [Broken]

To quote an old adage 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' or at the very least let's be consistant in our condemnation before adopting a holier than thou attitude.

Art, I believe there is a clear distinction between actions of war by military means and actions of civilian community on a street corner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
drankin said:
Art, I believe there is a clear distinction between actions of war by military means and actions of civilian community on a street corner.
Not to the victims there's not.

And fyi there is no war in Iraq. Bush formally declared an end to hostilities in May 2003. Since then the US are supposed to have been involved in a policing action which is supposed to be managed by a completely different set of rules with far higher standards relating to 'duty of care' than the Laws of War.
 
  • #27
Art said:
Not to the victims there's not.

And fyi there is no war in Iraq. Bush formally declared an end to hostilities in May 2003. Since then the US are supposed to have been involved in a policing action which is supposed to be managed by a completely different set of rules with far higher standards relating to 'duty of care' than the Laws of War.

I'm not buying it, Art. And the topic is getting side-tracked.
 
  • #28
drankin said:
I'm not buying it, Art. And the topic is getting side-tracked.
The point is it is as ridiculous to blame Islam and denounce 1 billion people for the actions of a few crazed fundamentalists as it would be to blame christianity for the actions of a few crazed but powerful zealots.
 
  • #29
Art said:
The point is it is as ridiculous to blame Islam and denounce 1 billion people for the actions of a few crazed fundamentalists as it would be to blame christianity for the actions of a few crazed but powerful zealots.

I get that.

It's just that when you see this stuff via cell phone video on a street corner of what appears to be a community activity, it makes you wonder. I want to believe that Islam is as peaceful as your other major religions liken to Christainity, Hindu, Buddhism (pretty much the biggies). I plan on doing a study of the Koran eventually in order to have an accurate reference. Civilians stoning helpless women on the streets with jeering onlookers just doesn't paint a good picture for me.

(Please do not bring up the early history of the Catholic church. It doesn't qualify in this day and age.)
 
  • #30
drankin said:
I get that.

It's just that when you see this stuff via cell phone video on a street corner of what appears to be a community activity, it makes you wonder. I want to believe that Islam is as peaceful as your other major religions liken to Christainity, Hindu, Buddhism (pretty much the biggies). I plan on doing a study of the Koran eventually in order to have an accurate reference. Civilians stoning helpless women on the streets with jeering onlookers just doesn't paint a good picture for me.

(Please do not bring up the early history of the Catholic church. It doesn't qualify in this day and age.)
I won't bring up the catholic church and 'rum, sodomy and the lash' :biggrin: as my contention is that like oroboro I believe religion has little or nothing to do with these heinous acts. It's twisted social values that are to blame; religion is just the fall guy.

Not so long back black folk in western society were treated in a way which would be considered shocking today but social norms of the day made it seem acceptable at the time with again the worst excesses being cloaked in the mantle of christianity.

Religion is truly the last refuge of the scoundrel.
 
  • #31
drankin said:
I get that.

It's just that when you see this stuff via cell phone video on a street corner of what appears to be a community activity, it makes you wonder. I want to believe that Islam is as peaceful as your other major religions liken to Christainity, Hindu, Buddhism (pretty much the biggies). I plan on doing a study of the Koran eventually in order to have an accurate reference. Civilians stoning helpless women on the streets with jeering onlookers just doesn't paint a good picture for me.
As Art and oroboro have been saying, the point is that, whatever the source you get your information about these events, whatever the level of overreporting of incidents like this, they don't represent the majority view in Islam, and you can't reasonably extrapolate from them that all Muslims are religious zealots who kill women with stones for things like this.

Get back to us when your plans come through and you study the Koran, or when you talk to a few Muslims.

(Please do not bring up the early history of the Catholic church. It doesn't qualify in this day and age.)
Here's an example. I would imagine that you wouldn't want all of Christianity based on the actions of the so called "Christian" Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Am I right? Or is that also too long ago for you?
 
  • #32
drankin said:
Good luck getting sympathy from the Westerners when we see no one stepping into help save this defenseless young womans life.
Think about that for a minute. Would you step into help her? This could be the same reason why you don't see many public protests when this sort of thing happens.

The western version of tolerance is a one-sided perspective. We tend to think in terms of what we would do, or what we believe is proper. It's easy to sit on a moral high-horse and say 'this is right and that is wrong.' We are full of pity for the world, and so convinced that we are doing good deeds, that we rarely stop to think if someone minds being considered pitiful by people who don't even bother to understand their perspective.

Very few westerners would have done anything if they were in that crowd. Most would have watched that woman be stoned to death without ever saying a word. Some would have taken a photograph so they could show their friends how barbaric life in the Middle-East can be. Overall, our reactions would have been much the same as the people who live there every day of their lives, but somehow we have the idea that we are more civilized individuals. We can even villify the religion of a billion people based on the actions of tyrants, terrorists and a few cruel people, as if those kinds of things don't happen where we live.
 
  • #33
The point is it is as ridiculous to blame Islam and denounce 1 billion people for the actions of a few crazed fundamentalists as it would be to blame christianity for the actions of a few crazed but powerful zealots.

Maybe if those few crazed fundamentalists thought about how their actions would represent their religion (or race/culture), they wouldn't act in such ways.

Unless you can show me some videos of a Buddhist based terrorist organization letting bombs off and killing numerous innocent civilians?

See, nobody said "all muslims act like this." We're just saying it's dumb to deny that Islam has more violent followers and a more violent track record than that of Buddhists. Even when it came down to political protests, Buddhist Monks poured oil and themselves, and burned themselves - not other innocent lives. They don't attempt to hijack the next 747 and crash it into a city "in the name of Buddha," See the difference?

Almost all scholars would condemn such an act and many speak out against it.

And scholars represent the entirety of Muslim followers? You could look at the select few of the most educated in any society, and get the impression that that society is intelligent and thoughtful.

Fortunately, the rest of us know better and realize that a society, or in this case, followers of a religion are made of more than just scholars.
Overall, our reactions would have been much the same as the people who live there every day of their lives, but somehow we have the idea that we are more civilized individuals.

I do like to think that I am more civilized than your everyday terrorist that mention Allah's name before blowing a city block up. But that's just my opinion. Maybe you think there equally civilized. But that could just be you.

The Chinese have a saying: one must always treat others just as one would want others to treat you. Virtue under Confucius is based upon harmony with other people.

If you were in that young women's situation, would you want someone to help you?

Think about that for a minute. Would you step into help her?

I wouldn't physically fight anyone over it because I'd be scared to get killed myself. But I guess that's what separates people like us from the heroes and those who have the bravery to change society for the better.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Dagenais said:
So you're into prognostication now? You're predicting how I would act if I were in that situation? I've been to many countries, and I act accordingly to their laws. But if something like that happens, I would expect to speak up. Would I go rambo and pick fights? Probably not. But I wouldn't do that where I live anyways. Doesn't mean I wouldn't say something.
I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you. I wasn't. But if you think most people would risk their lives for the chance of saving someone they don't know, you're just wrong. That's one of the few things in my post that isn't prognostication.

I have no concept of what it is like to have people trying to kill me. I can not honestly say how I would react in an emotional state similar to hers. Thinking rationally I would say that it would probably be best if nobody helped me. They would probably only be injured or killed themselves and not accomplish anything but more suffering. Their interference could also cause reprisal at a later date from the police or other people who were participating. Their family could be threatened. I think it would be best for an individual to not become involved.

Would you want someone to help you, knowing that others would suffer and probably not to your benefit at all? I think most people, in the same circumstances, would say yes.

And scholars represent the entirety of Muslim followers? You could look at the select few of the most educated in any society, and get the impression that that society is intelligent and thoughtful.
See, nobody said "all muslims act like this." We're just saying it's dumb to deny that Islam has more violent followers and a more violent track record than that of Buddhists. Even when it came down to political protests, Buddhist Monks poured oil and themselves, and burned themselves - not other innocent lives. They don't attempt to hijack the next 747 and crash it into a city "in the name of Buddha," See the difference?

OK, here you are using the same argument in different ways so that the outcome benefits you. Which is it? Do the actions of a few justify judgement of many, or not? This suggests to me that you choose to see Islam as a violent religion because of the actions of a few, regardless of any enlightened acheivements of that religion.
 
  • #35
Ok, a young woman was stoned to death on a street corner. Apparently it happens all the time, it just so happened to be videod this time. Now, we in the West are riding our high horses and denouncing it. How dare us. Who do we think we are?

Give it up people. Wrong is wrong is wrong. I don't care what religion you are. I agree with Art that scoundrels often hide behind religion to justify hideous acts.

Here is a fact: there is only one other religion that could justify this kind of act and that is Judaism. It's probably been 100 if not a 1000+yrs since that community has openly stoned a woman in the streets.

Muslims need to denounce this kind of crap if they want their religion to be seriously accepted by the rest of civilization. Because what I saw on that video was not civilized and I am confident that the majority of humanity sees it the same way.
 
<h2>1. Why was the girl stoned to death for falling in love?</h2><p>The girl was stoned to death because her community or family believed that she had brought dishonor upon them by falling in love with someone who was not approved by them. This practice, known as "honor killing," is unfortunately still prevalent in some cultures.</p><h2>2. Was the girl's punishment legal?</h2><p>In most cases, stoning is not a legal form of punishment. However, in some countries, it is still practiced as a form of capital punishment for crimes such as adultery or apostasy. In these cases, the girl's stoning may have been carried out under the guise of the law.</p><h2>3. Did the girl have any say in her punishment?</h2><p>In most cases, the girl has no say in her punishment. In many honor killings, the decision to carry out the stoning is made by the girl's family or community, and she has no control over the outcome.</p><h2>4. Is stoning still practiced today?</h2><p>Unfortunately, stoning is still practiced in some parts of the world, particularly in countries where there is a strong adherence to traditional or religious beliefs. However, there have been efforts to abolish this form of punishment and bring about change.</p><h2>5. What can be done to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future?</h2><p>Education and raising awareness about the harmful effects of honor killings and stoning can help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. It is also important for governments and international organizations to take action and implement laws and policies that protect individuals from such forms of violence and discrimination.</p>

1. Why was the girl stoned to death for falling in love?

The girl was stoned to death because her community or family believed that she had brought dishonor upon them by falling in love with someone who was not approved by them. This practice, known as "honor killing," is unfortunately still prevalent in some cultures.

2. Was the girl's punishment legal?

In most cases, stoning is not a legal form of punishment. However, in some countries, it is still practiced as a form of capital punishment for crimes such as adultery or apostasy. In these cases, the girl's stoning may have been carried out under the guise of the law.

3. Did the girl have any say in her punishment?

In most cases, the girl has no say in her punishment. In many honor killings, the decision to carry out the stoning is made by the girl's family or community, and she has no control over the outcome.

4. Is stoning still practiced today?

Unfortunately, stoning is still practiced in some parts of the world, particularly in countries where there is a strong adherence to traditional or religious beliefs. However, there have been efforts to abolish this form of punishment and bring about change.

5. What can be done to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future?

Education and raising awareness about the harmful effects of honor killings and stoning can help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. It is also important for governments and international organizations to take action and implement laws and policies that protect individuals from such forms of violence and discrimination.

Back
Top