[Perseveranze]

Tbh, I don't really believe her.

Mr Edis told the jury that Alesha had been arrested in 2010 for being involved in a robbery at her parents' home, in which three masked men tied up her mother, two sisters and brother.

Six days later she alleged to police that her parents killed Shafilea, he said.

Mr Edis said Alesha, who is on witness protection, was awaiting sentence on the robbery charge, and added: "She hasn't received any promises or indeed any inducement prior to when she first made these allegations."

He described her disclosure as a "bombshell" and said it was either the truth or "a wicked lie made up to help herself".

Like, you must have to REALLY HATE (the evil kind of hate) to rob your own parents (this isn't even talking about non-family here, this is family) and to tie them up. Only someone like that would plausibly make up such a lie to see their own parents suffer due to their hate (you know, if I got down your coming with me) and to relieve some of the punishment for their own crimes.

Only God knows what really happened I guess. Potentially, innocents may have got locked up.

[Pixxy_]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Tbh, I don't really believe her.



Like, you must have to REALLY HATE (the evil kind of hate) to rob your own parents (this isn't even talking about non-family here, this is family) and to tie them up. Only someone like that would plausibly make up such a lie to see their own parents suffer due to their hate (you know, if I got down your coming with me) and to relieve some of the punishment for their own crimes.

Only God knows what really happened I guess. Potentially, innocents may have got locked up.

Or she might hate her parents because they murdered her sister.

[rlw31]

(Original post by Pixxy_)
Or she might hate her parents because they murdered her sister.

This.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Pixxy_)
Or she might hate her parents because they murdered her sister.

what ever happend to innocent untill proven guilty..?

[Pixxy_]

(Original post by cl_steele)
what ever happend to innocent untill proven guilty..?

I am not saying they are guilty. I was providing another explanation for the girl's actions.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Pixxy_)
Or she might hate her parents because they murdered her sister.

(Original post by rlw31)
This.

Remain gullible, your choice.

If that was true, she would've reported her parents straight away, but she didn't. Rather she decided to just rob them, kidnap them, tie them up and who knows what else she was planning.

Only until she got caught did that story "suddenly" pop up.

[rlw31]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Remain gullible, your choice.

If that was true, she would've reported her parents straight away, but she didn't. Rather she decided to just rob them, kidnap them, tie them up and who knows what else she was planning.

Only until she got caught did that story "suddenly" pop up.

And why would that be the case?

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by rlw31)
And why would that be the case?

Because "according to you", she hated her parents for killing her sister.

[rlw31]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Because "according to you", she hated her parents for killing her sister.

And maybe she was also scared of them.

[Pixxy_]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Remain gullible, your choice.

If that was true, she would've reported her parents straight away, but she didn't. Rather she decided to just rob them, kidnap them, tie them up and who knows what else she was planning.

Only until she got caught did that story "suddenly" pop up.

The girl was 14 at the time of the murder and would have had no idea what to do. Growing up with the knowledge of what her parents had done could have caused her to turn to crime as a kind of revenge. In my opinion, both stories seem plausible.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Tbh, I don't really believe her.



Like, you must have to REALLY HATE (the evil kind of hate) to rob your own parents (this isn't even talking about non-family here, this is family) and to tie them up. Only someone like that would plausibly make up such a lie to see their own parents suffer due to their hate (you know, if I got down your coming with me) and to relieve some of the punishment for their own crimes.

Only God knows what really happened I guess. Potentially, innocents may have got locked up.

So if this was to be held in a Shariah court, how would the evidence be treated differently?

[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
If that was true, she would've reported her parents straight away, but she didn't. Rather she decided to just rob them, kidnap them, tie them up and who knows what else she was planning.

Only until she got caught did that story "suddenly" pop up.

So we have a possible situation where a sister is murdered to protect family 'honour', in a community in which it is strongly frowned upon to involve outsiders in affairs of 'honour' and where she could potentially be murdered for ratting on her 'honourable' parents (we both agree Islam/Pakistani culture pushes the 'honour' they parents shtick) and you find it unbelievable that she could be told to keep quite and the family shamed into silence until she finally lets it out.

I'm fine with the innocent until proven guilty (or conclusions not jumped to) and that there is potential for her having lied, on the other hand the fact the parents have been charged signifies that prosecutors feel there is a basis for a case.


The culture point further back in the thread is a dead-end, seeing as Islam/pakistani law also forbids murder and the legal and ethical culture of the country as a whole trumps a very minor deviant 'cultural' practice (read: crime).

There are some reasons to justify killing, there are plenty of reasons and situations where it's even sort of understandable if still wrong, fortunately for the world and modern society, 'honour' isn't one of them.

If proven guilty and convicted, her parents deserve some heavy time behind bars. Fortunately for them the UK doesn't believe in defending it's 'honour' with the death penalty.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
So we have a possible situation where a sister is murdered to protect family 'honour', in a community in which it is strongly frowned upon to involve outsiders in affairs of 'honour' and where she could potentially be murdered for ratting on her 'honourable' parents (we both agree Islam/Pakistani culture pushes the 'honour' they parents shtick) and you find it unbelievable that she could be told to keep quite and the family shamed into silence until she finally lets it out.

Actually has nothing to do with Islam, I don't remember any article mentioning religion either.

Islam teachers us to respect our elders and for our parents to care for their children. Go figure honor killings in that. Unlike "some cultures/beliefs", we're taught not to send our parents to care homes and abandon them. Which doesn't mean we are tied in any way with "honor killings".

And sorry to say, but a person who is willing to do those horrible acts to their parents, isn't going to listen to them to "stay quiet". They obviously hated them enormously and would've taken any opportunity to see them suffer, it's just too much of a coincidence that they took this "opportunity" when they themselves were going to go down.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So if this was to be held in a Shariah court, how would the evidence be treated differently?

Well, I would have my doubts that they would convict someone, based on one persons testimony, the same person who just attempted to rob their parents house, kidnap, tie them up and who knows what else.

Innocent until proven guilty is taken very seriously in a proper Shariah court. Its significance runs into western justice systems today;

The historian Marcel Boisard states in his journal “On the probable influence of Islam on western public and international law”, published in the International Journal of Middle East studies

It was above all the very high ethical standard of Islamic law that impressed the medieval West and provoked the development of a more refined legal thinking. This aspect is undoubtedly the most durable merit of Muslim influence, as illustrated by the administration of justice. Until the Crusades, legal procedure in the West consisted of “God’s judgments” by boiling water or by duel, or by “ordeal” during which people were burnt with red-hot irons or boiling oil and, if they survived, declared “not guilty.” In contrast, we have only to quote the instructions given by Omar in the seventh century to the Muslim judges to show what a chasm separated the two conceptions: “Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them.”

From Islam’s beginnings the suspect was presumed innocent until it could be proved otherwise. It is certainly not a coincidence that Louis IX was the monarch who created the French legal administration by appointing “royal inquirers,” by instituting testimonial proof, and by permitting the recourse of “making a plea to the King.” The legislation he introduced marked a turning point in the history of law in Europe. Popular imagery was not mistaken on this point, since it is that above all which was remembered. Louis IX had frequented the philosophic theologians of his time; he had received St. Thomas Aquinas at his table. The influence of Islam was, however, even more direct. We can make this presumption since it was on his return from Palestine that the King undertook his major legal reforms. Joinville (Jean de Joinville, chronicler of St Louis) gives us fairly clear proof in his writings.

Overall, they would need more than just a shady testimony. Even Mr Edis (above) indicates that this girls testimony is the main "proof", which he admitted could very well be lie.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Islam teachers us to respect our elders and for our parents to care for their children. Go figure honor killings in that.

There are many things that Islam teaches in one place, but then are contrary to other Islamic teachings found elsewhere. Am not saying that honour killing is Islamic, I am just pointing out the fallacy of your stance there.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Well, I would have my doubts that they would convict someone, based on one persons testimony, the same person who just attempted to rob their parents house, kidnap, tie them up and who knows what else.

If her parents did indeed murder her sister in front of her as alleged, then the fact that she could rob them 7 years later is not really that eyebrow-raising. I think having your sister murdered by your parents would change the relationship somewhat.

So your objection is the character of person giving testimony, or the fact it is only one person giving testimony?

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Innocent until proven guilty is taken very seriously in a proper Shariah court. Its significance runs into western justice systems today;

The historian Marcel Boisard states in his journal “On the probable influence of Islam on western public and international law”, published in the International Journal of Middle East studies

It was above all the very high ethical standard of Islamic law that impressed the medieval West and provoked the development of a more refined legal thinking. This aspect is undoubtedly the most durable merit of Muslim influence, as illustrated by the administration of justice. Until the Crusades, legal procedure in the West consisted of “God’s judgments” by boiling water or by duel, or by “ordeal” during which people were burnt with red-hot irons or boiling oil and, if they survived, declared “not guilty.” In contrast, we have only to quote the instructions given by Omar in the seventh century to the Muslim judges to show what a chasm separated the two conceptions: “Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them.”

From Islam’s beginnings the suspect was presumed innocent until it could be proved otherwise. It is certainly not a coincidence that Louis IX was the monarch who created the French legal administration by appointing “royal inquirers,” by instituting testimonial proof, and by permitting the recourse of “making a plea to the King.” The legislation he introduced marked a turning point in the history of law in Europe. Popular imagery was not mistaken on this point, since it is that above all which was remembered. Louis IX had frequented the philosophic theologians of his time; he had received St. Thomas Aquinas at his table. The influence of Islam was, however, even more direct. We can make this presumption since it was on his return from Palestine that the King undertook his major legal reforms. Joinville (Jean de Joinville, chronicler of St Louis) gives us fairly clear proof in his writings.

The question of innocent until proven guilty is not what I was referring to here, so not sure what the cut and paste is for. Just to point out though, that the judicial notion of innocent until proven guilty does not have its origins in Islamic law but in Roman Law.

And finally, nowhere is the notion of innocent until proven guilty actually applied, as seen by the fact that people are charged and detained pre-trial in every judicial system internationally.

[Raj K]

shoved a carrier bag in her mouth and put her remains in the river?!!stupid stupid stupid people how can anyone do that? their minds are fully corrupted just cant believe it.

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Tbh, I don't really believe her.



Like, you must have to REALLY HATE (the evil kind of hate) to rob your own parents (this isn't even talking about non-family here, this is family) and to tie them up. Only someone like that would plausibly make up such a lie to see their own parents suffer due to their hate (you know, if I got down your coming with me) and to relieve some of the punishment for their own crimes.

Only God knows what really happened I guess. Potentially, innocents may have got locked up.

I don't think she's making it up - if she is then she seriously sick in the head and the case will be back to square one - but I do find it very ironic that she admitted it AFTER she was arrested for the robbery.

I think we all have our breaking point - I know I do. There have been times when things have been so bad I end up like a ticking timebomb and then I snap, so I can kind of understand the sister.

I really do hope there is justice for Shafilea, as well as a stark warning for backwards idiots who come here imposing their backwards barbaric culture on this country and thinking they are above the law because of their culture. Something needs to be done about this issue.

However, I hope the fact that Alesha made the admission after her arrest will not completely overshadow the case and the need for justice.

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by Pixxy_)
Or she might hate her parents because they murdered her sister.

Exactly.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-S5830

[Dee Leigh]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Remain gullible, your choice.

If that was true, she would've reported her parents straight away, but she didn't.

Easier said than done.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-S5830

[tania<3]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Tbh, I don't really believe her.



Like, you must have to REALLY HATE (the evil kind of hate) to rob your own parents (this isn't even talking about non-family here, this is family) and to tie them up. Only someone like that would plausibly make up such a lie to see their own parents suffer due to their hate (you know, if I got down your coming with me) and to relieve some of the punishment for their own crimes.

Only God knows what really happened I guess. Potentially, innocents may have got locked up.

I don't know, if my parents had killed my sister when I was only 14 it wouldn't seem like an option to go to the police - what would happen to me, where would I live, who would take care of me... all those questions would arise. Also there's the fear that if parents can do it, why not another member of family? maybe someone could kill me for ratting the parents out. It probably wasn't easy hiding this from the police, but it probably would have been harder telling them.

Also if the parents were innocent - why wouldn't they report their daughter missing? If the sister was indeed lying about the parents being sick and twisted, surely they would have been worried for their daughter and called the police?

I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but things just don't add up from the other point of view... besides you can't deny honour killings DO happen, it's not unheard of.

Also, I've heard of that "guilty conscious" thing where if someone is hiding something that they feel they need to get punished for, they might deliberately try and get themselves into trouble just so they can feel like they are being punished. Perhaps it was the case with Alesha being involved with the robbery? I do not think we have enough information on that to make proper judgements just yet - but who knows.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
There are many things that Islam teaches in one place, but then are contrary to other Islamic teachings found elsewhere. Am not saying that honour killing is Islamic, I am just pointing out the fallacy of your stance there.

If you read this post in context, you'd realise it was aimed at the other poster, who tried to connect Islamics teachings of respect/honouring parents in connection to Honour killings.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
If her parents did indeed murder her sister in front of her as alleged, then the fact that she could rob them 7 years later is not really that eyebrow-raising. I think having your sister murdered by your parents would change the relationship somewhat.

The question is if, and it's a big if. Admittingly, we don't know the full case details which have been disclosed to the public, but making out with what we have, imo there's more chances of the girl being a liar than there is of the girl being truthful.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
So your objection is the character of person giving testimony, or the fact it is only one person giving testimony?

The person giving testimony and the circumstances in which it is given.

If the person hated her parents for killing her sister, she would've told the police a long time ago. Clearly fear had little to do with it if she was willing to rob, tie and kidnap them.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
The question of innocent until proven guilty is not what I was referring to here, so not sure what the cut and paste is for. Just to point out though, that the judicial notion of innocent until proven guilty does not have its origins in Islamic law but in Roman Law.

If you actually read quotes in their full (instead if skimming or getting carried away) nor I nor did the historian quoted state that the innocent until proven guilty law has origins in Shariah. Rather the author stated the western legal systems influence from the Shariah based on evidences presented.

And the law does have significance, because given the context of such a law applied, the parents would still be innocent, as no substantial evidences has been presented to render them guilty of the crime. It's also wholly related to Shariah, which is what you initially asked.

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And finally, nowhere is the notion of innocent until proven guilty actually applied, as seen by the fact that people are charged and detained pre-trial in every judicial system internationally.

Pre-trials are not as simple as your putting it, usually the majority of them consist in the prosecutors and defense attorneys coming to some kind of agreement, based on some lighter sentence or fee settlement - probably because the defendant knows they won't be able to win the case.

Otherwise like in this case, there's a proper trial where the defendant is able to defend their case against the testimony of the same girl who just tried to rob, kidnap and tie them. The prosecutors should attempt to provide the evidences against the defendants, and I believe a single testimony in such circumstances is not "enough" evidence. A person who studies law can probably shed more light.

And I'll repeat, even those are deeply connected to the case understand the girl could easily be lying and could potentially be telling the truth, if it's 50/50 then you should give the benefit of the doubt to the parents in this case.