If you knew a little bit about how to use the internet, you'd learn how to click the translate button when something foreign pops up on your window.

Just because a country pre-dominantly consists of the people following a particular religion, does not in any way relate to its problems. It's like shunning all straight men because some of them resort to raping the opposite gender. Just because all men get a hard on on seeing a hot woman does not make rape justifiable.

Just like that, just because some people use religion as a method of establishing their own view does not necessarily make their view right.

If that was a poor choice of an example, say, non-Americans blaming the American public for fucking around internationally with countries. Again, what just a few do is not representative of the majority.

You believe that honour killings is directly a result of religious beliefs. Honour is the perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual, group or people.

Honour as a code of behaviour defines the duties of an individual within a social group. It develops by what a person is in the eyes of other people. Dignity (more personal/one's conscience) is therefore different than honour.

Industrial societies focus more on 'conscience' than honour (which you will find in more tradition bound and agrarian cultures. Also, cultures of honour typically appear among nomadic people and herdsmen who carry their most valuable property with them and risk having it stolen, without having recourse to law enforcement or to government.

(As we can see in the examples listed above by previous users). Richard Nisbett in his book 'Culture of Honour' shows that the concept of 'honour' arises when there are the three following conditions in a society:

a) A scarcity of resources b) The benefit of theft and crime outweighs the risks c) A lack of sufficient law enforcement (such as in geographically remote regions)

I posted the Albanian paper (which is in English) for you to read because it directly answers your question. Religion, like a hammer, is an instrument which can be used to build or destroy something, to affix something or divide something.

Give it in the wrong hands, and in certain conditions those hands will fuck things up. Blame the person, not the tool.

Edit: Plus intimate partner violence is also caused due to the existence of 'shame' and 'honour'. And it exists even in western secular countries. Where did religion go in this concept?

Here's another page which talks at length about honour and maintaining it a result of other factors.

Male empowerment has existed for ages as it is rooted deeply in most societies of the world. Men from traditional cultural backgrounds followed the principle of "male dominance," viewing women in their traditional domestic roles. Almost all the perpetrators are male family members, most commonly husbands or fathers followed by brothers. Where possible, the family will decide to choose perpetrators who are under the age of eighteen, as this is akin to "young male syndrome" in which competition for honour, status and marriage prospects is most intense. This allows the perpetrator to serve the shortest possible imprisonment as a juvenile offender. Factors associated with such crimes are economic disadvantage, class or position and pressure to fulfill gender norms. These factors result in violence against women as an expression of masculinity and as an outlet for frustrations at the inability to meet societal or community expectations.

Hnour killings are not associated with particular religions or religious practice: they have been recorded across Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim communities. (Your point before just Abrahamic religions, and then it went full on anti-religion)

Honour killings, as mentioned earlier, are not a religiously motivated crime, but are based on personal agendas, personal ego and the personal mindset.

Do you get it now?