By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Public Prosecution Service is seeking prison sentences of up to 25 years for three suspects in the murder of 18-year-old Ryan Al Najjar, including her father, Khaled Al N., and her two brothers. Prosecutors allege that Khaled, currently a fugitive in Syria, orchestrated the killing due to Ryan’s perceived violation of family expectations regarding her Western lifestyle. Ryan’s body was discovered bound and drowned, with Khaled’s DNA present, and evidence suggests the brothers actively participated, though they blame their father. Despite limited cooperation with Syria, the court is expected to deliver its verdict on January 5th.
Read the original article here
Syrian father, brothers living in Netherlands drowned teenage sister in swamp in honour killing. The sheer brutality of this act is something that’s difficult to process. The idea that a father and his sons, people who should be her protectors, could commit such a heinous crime is deeply disturbing. It speaks to a level of cultural conflict and misguided belief that’s truly shocking.
The prosecution revealed that the victim, a teenage girl named Ryan, was targeted for embracing a Western lifestyle. She was accused of violating her family’s expectations by adopting Western customs, interacting with males, choosing not to wear a headscarf, and using social media. This paints a grim picture: a young woman living in a free society, attempting to define her own path, and being punished for it by her own family. It highlights the stark clash between her aspirations and the restrictive, often oppressive, norms they clung to.
It’s natural to feel a sense of bewilderment. Why immigrate to a country that offers freedom and tolerance if you intend to impose the values of the “stone age?” The fundamental disconnect is hard to ignore. If you come to a new country, shouldn’t you embrace it? It’s tough to accept that certain cultures don’t seem capable of integrating, instead clinging to beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with the host country’s values. Women, in this scenario, are essentially treated as property, disposable in the name of twisted honor.
The concept of “honor” in this context is completely warped. There is nothing honorable about murdering a family member. It’s simply murder, plain and simple. It’s impossible to see this as anything other than a barbaric act, and it’s important to call it out for what it is: femicide.
The responses and the comments underscore the need for consequences. These individuals should face the full force of the law, and the punishments should be severe. The suggestion of deportation, after serving their time, also resonates, as it seeks to remove those who cannot or will not abide by the laws and values of their new home. It’s not about judging an entire group of people; it’s about holding individuals accountable for their horrific actions.
There is a prevalent sentiment that Western societies should not be tolerant of intolerance. If someone moves to a country that values freedom and equality, they should respect those values. The idea of importing conflict and traditions that clash with the new home’s values, is seen as unacceptable.
The need for a societal response is evident in several comments. The idea of using these criminals as an example, by providing them with only the bare minimum and denying them the dignity they denied their victim, is a harsh but understandable reaction. It underscores the sentiment that these individuals have forfeited their rights.
Many are concerned that we should be more proactive in addressing these issues. It involves a willingness to challenge cultural practices that are at odds with basic human rights. It also means actively supporting those who are vulnerable to these kinds of pressures. We need to be welcoming, but with the understanding that not all cultures are equal when it comes to human rights.
The role of religion is also brought into question. Many people see it as a driving force behind this kind of violence, a “poisonous idea” that has no place in the modern world. It is clear that fundamental religious beliefs can be used to justify horrific acts, and that makes it hard to tolerate.
The level of cultural conflict is, unfortunately, very real. Stories of this nature fuel anti-immigrant sentiment. And, frankly, it’s not hard to understand why. It’s a tragedy that must be prevented. The victim, a teenage girl, simply wanted to live her life. She didn’t deserve to die.
There is a sense of outrage. The comments express disgust and disbelief. The case is a grim reminder that even in today’s world, in a country like the Netherlands, some people cling to outdated, oppressive beliefs. The need for justice, for the victim and for society as a whole, is paramount. The tragedy is that, in a world that promises freedom, sometimes that freedom is denied, not by outside forces, but by those closest to you.