Skip to main content

Women and Islam: "Honor" Killings

In today's world, Islam is looked upon negatively when it comes to the issue of women's rights, usually with bias and ignorance on certain issues; in light of these misconceptions, I will conduct a series of posts to disspell such myths about women's status in Islam. This post will reflect on the issue of so-called "honor" killings.

Islamic society at its prime is a centrist society: it does not take conservative nor liberal values solely for a certain value or aspect. Islamic law tends to be strict on an issue and, at the same time, loose when it comes to certain circumstances surrounding that particular issue. However, it tends to be strict on the most severe of injustices. Among them is, of course, murder: a hateful crime punishable by death only when the killer is a sane adult who knows what he or she is doing.

A form of murder that has arised wrongly in Islamic countries is the centuries-old practice of "honor" killings, which happen to be crimes committed against women who engage in sexual activity outside marriage. Such crimes are more often than not committed by a relative of the woman (most likely to be her dad or brother) or the relative of her partner. "Honor" killings have, unfortunately, been spread by extremist teachings, disregarding all Islamic calls against murder, from the Quran and Hadith.

What sickens me further is that some secular Muslims have come out to say that "honor" killings are Islamic based on Islam's strict opposition to adultery. God has said in the Quran,
[24:2]woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
However, it is often argued in certain cases that adulterers should be punished by death, especially when one or both are married.

However, these secular and radical Muslims have forgotten their Islamic roots: "honor" killings go back to pre-Islamic times. According to Wikipedia,
The killing of people for sexual crimes has been known since the times of Ancient Babylon (1700 BCE). The Codes of Hammurabi and Assura (some of the earliest sets of laws discovered), focus on the perception that a woman’s virginity belongs to her family. In Peru from 1200 BCE - 1532 CE, alleged adulterers were punished by having their hands and feet tied to a wall and being left to starve to death. A man was allowed to kill his wife if he caught or suspected her of having an extra-marital affair, while if a woman caught or suspected her husband of doing the same thing and killed him, she was given the death penalty. In the Valley of Mexico from 150 BCE - 1521 CE, the punishment for female adultery was death by stoning or strangulation, but only after the husband could prove the offence.
Belying all evidence, we can see that the practice of "honor" killing is far beyond Islamic.

Despite all the evidence, people argue that "honor" killings are condoned by Islam. If that were true, then how come God sanctioned all life-threatening acts of violence in the Quran? He has said,
[4:93] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.
But then again, Islamophobes bring out this Hadith. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,
"The blood of a Muslim may not be legally spilt other than in one of three [instances]: the married person who commits adultery; a life for a life; and one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community."
Note I bolded the word "legally". This means that if blood is to spilt, it should be done after a trial in the court of law. Therefore extrajudicial killings are forbidden in Islam. And this online fatwa only serves to confirm my point:
Focusing more on your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

There is no such concept in Islam that is called “honor killing”. Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it. It does not allow people to take the law in their own hands and administer justice, because doing so will be leading to chaos and lawlessness. Therefore, based on this, Islam does not permit such killings.

First of all, in order to sanction killing, it must be through a binding verdict issued by an authoritative law court. Individuals themselves have no authority either to judge cases or pass judgments. Therefore, a Muslim should not sanction such killing because doing so will be leading to the rule of the law of the jungle. A civilized society cannot be run by such laws.”

[...]

The so-called “honor killing” is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments.

It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.
To say that "honor" killings are a part of Islam or its culture would be sheer lunacy. Islam is against such barbaric acts, and only through educating our fellow Muslims can we stop this practice altogether.

And God Knows Best.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...