Talk:Murder of Aqsa Parvez

Hijab?

Later reports seem to indicate that the hijab issue was just one of many clashes between the victim and her father. It may not have been the most important reason for this tragedy, or even a major reason at all. We should rewrite to make this clear, I think. <eleland/talkedits> 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources that say this, then feel free to put them in. Right now, the article only makes mention that one of her friends claims the hijab was not the cause.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hijab Issue

Please someone write about the Hijab issue and the hate campaign of the media against Hijab. Now, we all now that the Islam or Hijab was not a major factor. We should give some time to expose the lies told by the media, especially on internet.

If anyone crosses a red-signal and for example, any other person kills him for crossing the red-signal, the red signal is not responsible. Similarly, even if there was religion involved in the clash, religion is not responsible. People can have clashes on everything. It is not the religion who says to kill just to have no Hijab.

The Hijab is growing popular in every culture and some islamophobia infected people cannot see its popularity, so they started the hate campaigns against Hijab. If anyone wants to criticize Islam, please use the facts only. thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a condemnation of the killing of Aqsa Parvez while saying that the Hijab for women is a part of Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0shFaDjz4Xs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhan00 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Hijab reason as headline?

I don't want to blame anyone, but when you write her classmates reports in headlines, please give same place for her Close friend's arguments. I know that there are many people suffering from Islamophobia here, but please do nut suffer from Hijabophobia and give some space for Facts in the headlines.--thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why "Hijab was not a major factor" is wrote with bold text ?

Is Lubna Tahir's opinion is more important than other freinds of Asqsa ? By this sentence Lubna Tahir wants to said that Hijab was a symbol of excessive control that Aqsa father use and a exemple of excessive control that Aqsa father use.Why Lubna Tahir is more cautious?I don't know. --Charitybernhard (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I thought that she is important being her 'closest' friend. If I am wrong then tell me who is more important?--Builder w (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Honor killings for Hijab are NOT sanctioned in Islamic law

See p215. Certain editors don't want the word to get out and are censoring this information, which is needed to counteract the misinformed imams being quoted here. Arrow740 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arrow740! you are going illogical. For example, if someone's beloved is raped in front of him, what religion or culture will say to first got o police station and report it. HOWEVER, this does not mean that all religions allow honor killing for Hijab. In this case, you have to prove that Islam allows Honor Killing 'for Hijab reason', if you think that she was killed for Hijab. On the other hand, you will be failed to prove that Islam forces Hijab. If a person is killed for crossing a red-light, will you start blaming the red-light. So, pls do not associate ppl's behaviors with religions.--Builder w (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell everyone, because it is a big secret! With this knowledge you hold, you can help save the world from all Muslims and Arabs, and Wikipedia is the best place to do it! Atari400 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many divisions of Islam into sects, schools, traditions (see Divisions of Islam) so the concept of Islamic law (Sharia) is not a clear argument that forget the hypothesis of a crime motivated by Islam and domestic violence--Charitybernhard (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please mention what Sect of Islam allows killing a woman if she does not wear the Hijab.--Builder w (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

When imams in the west say that something is "un-Islamic" when in fact it is sanctioned by Islamic law and basically legal in Muslim countries, we need to have the balancing statement from an actual scholar. Arrow740 (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are suffering from Islamophobia. Which Muslim country has a law to kill a women if she does not wear the Hijab. And first, try to prove that covering head and face is 'compulsory' for a Muslim, according to Islam. If you have something, first write it in Hijab article.--Builder w (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Rather amazing that Wikipedia has an article titled Islam and domestic violence, though. Smacks of some serious agenda driven bias and editor abuse. This is an encyclopedia after all, and not a scholarly journal on sociological theory. Atari400 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad said men should beat their wives in certain situations, hence the rampant domestic violence in the Islamic world. Arrow740 (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a history of quoting out of context. I just checked your edits, all symptoms of Islamophobia. U know how many girls killed in india everyday? India has now less women girls then boys during abortions upon knowing that there is a 'girl inside'. but this does not mean that we start blaming hinduism for that. For thousands of years, they divided ppl in the name of religion, for thousands of years, they practiced the satti, etc. I think your Islamophobia needs a doctor. I recommend Zakir Naik.--Builder w (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so if something's wrong with the religion your parents put you into, you leave it. Just like I did. Arrow740 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what you are doing can be judged from your everyday edits. and... for your kind information ,,, our full family is a 'revert' to Islam. I still have a respect for Buddhism and Hinduism. What you are doing is just hate.--Builder w (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, please refrain from removing my comments from this talk page. Also, this talk page is for discussing the article, not for ranting. Kindly take them elsewhere.Bless sins (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be lecturing Atari for using the wrong talk page for his "rant." Arrow740 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The flip answer is that it's original synthesis to contrast the statements of Canadian imams with the Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures; if a reliable source has made the point in relation to the imams, cite them.

That's quite enough to exclude the edits, but it's worth pointing out that you're citing a source discussing Shari'a texts in Iran and Afghanistan. Your contributions on this page have ranged from sloppy & tendentious to downright block-worthy; cut the crap or you'll be reported to ANI. <eleland/talkedits> 08:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You are displaying incivility, arrogance, and complete ignorance. Sharia texts are not country-specific, and the statement in the source is more general than yours for this reason. Arrow740 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of original research. Unless the source is discussing in the context of the article topic, Aqsa Parvez, then it's not warranted here. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic has wandered to whether or not honor killings are Islamic. Imams are being quoted to the extent that they are not. In fact, they are. So remove the statements about whether or not the act is Islamic. Arrow740 (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments being made by the imams are in the context of Aqsa Parvez, and her murder. You are free to insert reliable sources that make comments in the same context.Bless sins (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ease up on the defamation and BLP violations, please

"Certain editors," you know who you are, it's bad enough that you've been making prejudicial and WP:OR#SYNthetic edits to the page, now you've taken to claiming that a prominent Imam is an extremist and a liar. Please take your Islamophobic campaign elsewhere... like off Wikipedia entirely. <eleland/talkedits> 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be making the false, groundless assumption that I am wrong. Arrow740 (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can provide multiple iron-clad reliable sources that Mohammad Alnadui is both an Islamist radical and a liar, it really doesn't matter whether you're wrong, for our purposes. The burden of proof is, of course, on the person making highly negative claims about a person, per WP:BLP. <eleland/talkedits> 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone should have told you that this is a talk page; statements here do not need to be cited to multiple iron-clad reliable sources. Arrow740 (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Axa"

What's up with "Axa" as part of her name? It is implied that this was her middle name? It appears to be simply an anglicized version of "Aqsa".Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a nickname.--Auric talk 21:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Highlighting Islam as Cause of Death

I think it is of paramount importance that Aqsa's death be attributed to Islamic beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllahuBud (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be "Murder of Aqsa Parvez" ? Why does the motive and type of murder matter? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly true that we really shouldn't be legitimising concepts such as "honour killing" though use of such titles. The motivee and background are highly important, but not to the extent that they should be in the title itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Aqsa Parvez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214115032/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071211/muslim_dad_071212/20071212?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071211/muslim_dad_071212/20071212?hub=TopStories
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218135419/http://www.canada.com:80/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=4b0875ae-dada-4e47-8cd7-10d8e62aa614&k=93596 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=4b0875ae-dada-4e47-8cd7-10d8e62aa614&k=93596
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705205212/http://www.canada.com:80/topics/news/story.html?id=76268bc7-fbc7-49a6-95d6-c48b65b1c5aa to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=76268bc7-fbc7-49a6-95d6-c48b65b1c5aa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)