Honor killing

An honor killing (also spelt honour, see spelling differences) or shame killing[1] is the homicide of a
member of a family by other members, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought
shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually
for reasons such as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved
by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are
deemed inappropriate, engaging in non-heterosexual relations or renouncing a faith.

Definitions
Human Rights Watch defines "honor killings" as follows:

Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against
female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be
targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an
arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorceeven from an abusive
husbandor (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a
way that "dishonors" her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.[7]

Although rarely, men can also be the victims of honor killings by members of the family of a woman
with whom they are perceived to have an inappropriate relationship.[8] The loose term "honor killing"
applies to killing of both men and women in cultures that practice it.[9]

Some women who bridge social divides, publicly engage other communities, or adopt some of the
customs or the religion of an outside group may be attacked. In countries that receive immigrants,
some otherwise low-status immigrant men and boys have asserted their dominant patriarchal status by
inflicting honor killings on female family members who have participated in public life, for example,
in feminist and integration politics.[10]

General characteristics
The distinctive nature of honor killings is the collective nature of the crime many members of an
extended family plan the act together, sometimes through a formal "family council". Another
significant feature is the connection of honor killings to the control of individual's behavior, in
particular in regard to sexuality/marriage, by the family as a collective. Another key aspect is the
importance of the reputation of the family in the community, and the stigma associated with losing
social status, particularly in tight-knit communities.[11] Another characteristic of honor killings is that
the perpetrators often don't face negative stigma within their communities, because their behavior is
seen as justified.[12]

Extent
The incidence of honor killings is very difficult to determine and estimates vary widely. In most
countries data on honor killings is not collected systematically, and many of these killings are reported
by the families as suicides or accidents and registered as such.[13][14][15] Although honor killings are
often associated with the Asian continent, especially the Middle East and South Asia, they occur all
over the world.[16][17] In 2000, the United Nations estimated that 5,000 women were victims of honor
killings each year.[18] According to BBC, "Women's advocacy groups, however, suspect that more than
20,000 women are killed worldwide each year."[19] Murder is not the only form of honor crime, other
crimes such as acid attacks, abduction, mutilations, beatings occur; in 2010 the UK police recorded at
least 2,823 such crimes.[20]

Methods
Methods of killing include stoning, stabbing, beating, burning, beheading, hanging, throat slashing,
lethal acid attacks, shooting and strangulation.[21] The murders are sometimes performed in public to
warn the other individuals within the community of possible consequences of engaging in what is seen
as illicit behavior.[21]

Use of minors as perpetrators

Often, minor girls and boys are selected by the family to act as the killers, so that the killer may
benefit of the most favorable legal outcome. Boys and sometimes women in the family are often asked
to closely control and monitor the behavior of their sisters or other females in the family (there are also
few cases of men or boys being killed in the name of 'honor', to ensure that the females do not do
anything to tarnish the 'honor' and 'reputation' of the family. The boys are often asked to carry out the
murder, and if they refuse, they may face serious repercussions from the family and community for
failing to perform their "duty".[21][22]

Question: Does Islam Approve Of Honour

Killings Of Women?
Answer:
Islam strongly prohibits the killing of any person without lawful reasons. Islamic teachings do not
allow any person to take the law into their own hands and to commit murder, no matter what
justification is used. Although Islam does impose the capital punishment for certain crimes, no one
person can act as the accuer, judge and executioner. This would lead to a complete breakdown of
society, as any person would be able to commit murder and then claim that they had valid reasons for
doing so. Therefore, Islam has instituted a very specific system of implementing the law. Islam
requires that a judge hear the case of both the accuser and the accused, and to listen to witnesses
before making any judgement. This ensures that society operates based on the rule of law such that
justice is established.

The following statements from the holy Quran demonstrate how strongly Islam prohibits murder:

"Whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell, to abide therein forever, and the
wrath and the curse of Allah are upon them, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for them." (Holy
Quran, Chapter 4, Verse 93)

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless it be for
murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if they killed all people. And if any one
saved a life, it would be as if they saved the life of all people." (Holy Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 32)

The practice of so-called "honour killing" is in reality an act of murder. It is usually carried out against
a female family member who is seen by relatives as dishonoring their family through real or perceived
acts of indiscretion, such as premarital sexual relations or unapproved dating. In many cases of
"honour killing", the accused woman is innocent, and is killed purely based on suspicion. In other
cases, the issue of "honour" is used as a cover to justify a murder that was really committed for other
purposes. No matter what the reason is, "honour killing" is a despicable crime.

There is absolutely no justification in Islam for "honour killing" of women or men. Those who commit
these crimes can expect hellfire as their punishment, in addition to the wrath and anger of God, as the
previous verse from the holy Quran describes. These types of killings are quite simply murder crimes,
and should be prosecuted as such. No society, Muslim or otherwise, should tolerate such extrajudicial
murder. This is especially true if these murders are carried out in the name of Islam or any other
religion. There is no justification or leniency in Islamic teachings for such murder crimes. Those who
commit these crimes are either ignorant of Islamic teachings, or they try to invoke religion to get
lenient treatment. In both cases, they must be punished as murderers in order to establish justice and in
order to act as a deterrent to those who would consider committing such crimes.

There is no historical background in Islam for "honour killing". No verse in the holy Quran and no
saying of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) sanctions such crimes. There were no cases of "honour killing"
during the early period of Islam. This is a concept that seems to have appeared only recently, and is
based only upon ignorance of the true teachings of Islam, and perhaps some ancient customs that pre-
date Islam.

Islam does prescribe strict and sometimes even severe punishments for certain crimes (Please review
the question: Why Does Islam Impose Strict Punishments On Crimes Such As Adultry And
Robbery?). However, Islam places a great burder of proof on the accuser to prove their accusations.
Otherwise, no conviction and no punishment can occur. Proving a case of fornication or adultery in
court under Islam is extremely difficult. Islamic law requires either a confession by those who
committed the crime, or the testimony of four witnesses. These four witnesses must have seen the act
of fornication by their own eyes. This makes it extremely difficult if not impossible for a court of law
under Islam to find people guilty of fornication or adultery.

Islam has prescribed these punishments as a deterrent, and as a way to demonstrate to people how ugly
these crimes are and how hated they are in the sight of God. Islam intended to prevent crime from
happening in the first place, as much as possible, rather than punish people after it is too late and the
crime has already occured.

Therefore, although Islam does prescribe 100 lashes for fornication (sexual relations between
unmarried people), and death by stoning for adultery (married people who have sexual relations
outside of marriage), these punishments are not really meant to be performed as much as they are
meant to make these crimes hated in the eyes of the society in order to minimize their occurance. The
only practical way for these punishments to be performed in Islam is by confession of the guilty
person. In these cases, Islam teaches that those who receive these punishments during their life will
have their sins wiped away and will not have to face punishment for these crimes in the afterlife.
However, Islam strongly recommends that Muslims who commit crimes repent, regret their mistakes
and not to tell others about what they have done. Those who truly and sincerely repent to God, regret
their sins and commit themselves to never repeating them again, God will forgive their sins and wipe
them away. This is demonstrated by the following verses:

"Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor kill lives which Allah has made sacred, except
for just cause, nor commit fornication, and any person that does this meets punishment, and their
penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled, and they will dwell therein in ignominy, unless they
repent, believe and perform righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good,
and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Holy Quran, Chapter 25, Verse 68)

Of course, the question arises that if Islam does not sanction or justify "honour killing", then why does
it occur? There are many reasons. As stated earlier, in religious societies, religion is invoked by people
in order to gain sympathy from others in their society. Therefore, murderers may try to invoke religion
to justify their actions. However, this does not mean that their religion approves of their action. It is
just a desperate attempt by them to justify their horrible action and to get lenient treatment.

Another reason may be ignorance. Many cases of "honour killing" are carried out by people who are
ignorant of Islam. They are not aware of the teachings of Islam, and they confuse local customs and
traditions with Islam. It is likely that these people commit their crimes due to anger, outrage, and a
perceived loss of honour, and then try to justify their barbarity to themselves and to others using
religion.
Perhaps the most common reason for "honour killings" is jealousy, by men who discover that their
wife has committed adultery or is having a relationship with another man. In these instances, rage,
jealousy and revenge are the real motives for the crime.

These "crimes of passion" are not limited to Muslims only. As an example, in the United States there
are approximately 1,200 women killed every year by their husbands or intimate partners. This
demonstrates that these crimes occur in every nation and in every society, regardless of religion, race
or language. These crimes must be condemned and punished by every society, and especially by
Muslim societies, as one of the main aims of Islamic law is the protection of the sanctity of life.

Fatwa declares honour killing as 'un-Islamic and an

unpardonable sin'
ISLAMABAD: At least 40 Islamic scholars belonging to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) issued a
fatwa (ruling) on Sunday declaring the murder of women or girls in the name of honour as 'un-Islamic'
and an 'unpardonable sin'.

The ruling issued on the appeal of SUC chairman Sahibzada Hamid Raza declared that burning
women who marry of their will is against Islamic teachings as Islam allows a 'mature' women to marry
of her own free will.

Condemning the the recent honour killings in Lahore, Abbottabad and Murree, the document states
that such incidents have shaken the whole society and they reveal that we are moving towards social
and societal degradation.

The fatwa also urged the government to implement proper legislation in order to curb such crimes, and
declare heinous acts such as burning or killing of woman as an unpardonable crime as it is an Islamic
government's responsibility to protect women rights.

The fatwa comes days after a woman in Lahore, Zeenat Bibi, was set on fire by her mother for
marrying a man of her own choice. Zeenats mother later confessed to the crime.

Earlier this month, A 19-year-old school teacher from Murree was tortured and set on fire after
refusing a marriage proposal while last month, a 16-year-old girl was strangled and set on fire
allegedly for helping her friend escape the village to marry of her free will.

Last year, the Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC) had also declared murder of women or girls in the name
of honour as un-Islamic.

Crimes of honour
When a category of crime draws sustenance from age-old cultural attitudes, particularly those
pertaining to the concept of honour and a womans place in society, legislation alone is an inadequate
deterrent. Nevertheless, a beginning must be made, and so it was with the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act 2004 when, for the first time, honour crimes were defined in the Pakistan Penal Code.

The same piece of legislation also effected an important amendment in Section 311 of the PPC. This
section specifies the penalties that can be awarded by a judge regardless of whether or not a
compromise has been reached in a case of murder, including honour killings.

The amendment set a minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment in cases where the offence is
found to have been committed on the pretext of honour but, crucially, it did not take away judicial
discretion in awarding punishment in such cases, or other instances of murder.

Advertisement
This meant that many husbands, brothers, fathers and other male relatives (victims of honour killing
are overwhelmingly female) still manage to evade punishment.

The Punjab government, reportedly spurred by the horrific murder of Farzana Iqbal by her family, in
broad daylight, adjacent to the premises of the Lahore High Court in May this year, has now taken an
important step towards strengthening the law pertaining to honour crimes.

It has proposed, among other amendments, that the word may be replaced with shall in Section
311, thereby removing judicial discretion and making the punishment mandatory in cases of honour
killing whether or not a compromise has been struck.

That such an amendment should be necessary is largely a comment on the cultural attitudes to honour
which impact how indeed whether such cases are investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated upon.
These attitudes hobble the case from the outset.

Quasi legal mechanisms of justice, such as jirgas, often hand in glove with an unsympathetic law-
enforcement apparatus, discourage victims families from going to court.

The police, a product of the same society that gives rise to such crimes, brings its own biases to the
investigation. Delays at the trial stage render a victims family susceptible to social pressures because
of the shame associated with pursuing such cases.

Chauvinistic judges sometimes allow the plea of grave and sudden provocation to colour their
judgments. The issue must be addressed holistically: plugging loopholes in the law must go together
with the sensitisation of police, medico-legal staff and public prosecutors.

Move to ensure punishment for honour killing

LAHORE: The Punjab government is planning to ensure stringent punishment for honour killings
even if heirs of the victims, mainly women, reach agreements with the killers.

The initiative has been taken by the women development department after the killing of one Farzana
allegedly by male members of her family near the Lahore High Court in May this year.

A summary was sent to the chief minister for permission to amend the relevant laws and he had
constituted a committee under former law minister Rana Sanaullah Khan.

Advertisement

Sources told Dawn on Sunday that the committee had held its meeting a few days ago and discussed
the proposal to make the honour killing a non-compoundable offence. But the meeting attended by
government officials and members of civil society and religious scholars was informed that the idea
might draw objections from religious circles.

Before 1990 the honour killing was a non-compoundable offence, but it was later made
compoundable in view of the opinion by religious scholars and recommendations by the Council of
Islamic Ideology (CII). The view was that Islam allows a compromise in murder cases and, therefore,
the offence should be made compoundable.

According to the sources, the meeting was informed that since the offence had been made
compoundable under the CII instructions, the idea of making it non-compoundable would be opposed
by religious circles.

An alternative proposal was presented which sought to amend Section 311 of the PPC under which
courts may punish a murderer if it is found that the act of Fasad Fil Arz is involved in the case,
even if heirs of the victim pardon the killer under an agreement. The pardoned killers to be punished
by courts include those who have past criminal conduct, adopted brutal and shocking manner of the
killing and are potential threat to society.

An amendment to the section made in 2011 also allows the courts to punish the killers pardoned under
some agreements. The courts may sentence them to life imprisonment (25 years), 14 years
imprisonment or even to death. According to the law, in any case the punishment should not be less
than 10 years of imprisonment.

A suggestion was made at the meeting to replace the word may in the section with shall to make
punishment for honour killings mandatory and fix death sentence or life imprisonment for the killers,
even if they are pardoned by heirs of the victims.

The sources said that a sub-committee also comprising religious scholars had been formed to firm up
recommendations and submit these in 15 days.

The government is going to discourage honour killing by plugging loopholes in the law, an official
said.

Hopes and honour killings

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recently watched A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness,
Sharmeen Obaid Chinoys Oscar-nominated documentary about honour killings. In a statement
following the screening, he told Ms Chinoy and his audience that there is no honour in murder.

In the days since it has been announced that the government will move to plug holes in laws that
currently allow killers (often family members) to go unpunished. Ms Chinoy has expressed the hope
that her film would help put an end to honour killings in Pakistan.

It would be wonderful if her wish came true. The reasons it will not are the ones that the government
needs to address if it truly wishes to tackle the problem.

Before reasons, however, consider context. I pulled up two sets of statistics compiled by the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). The first covers the period spanning Feb 1, 2004, to Feb 1,
2006. During this time, there were 988 incidents of honour killings in Pakistan. Nearly, but not exactly
half, did not even have FIRs registered for the crime. Firearms were the weapon of choice for doing
away with the victims, followed by blunt force injury with a heavy weapon.

Fast-forward a decade: another set of statistics I pulled from the HRCP database was from between
February 2014 to February 2016. The number of honour killings in this period was 1,276, nearly 400
did not have FIRs registered, and most of the victims were killed by guns.

The decade in the middle has not been one without legislative initiatives or civil society campaigns to
end honour killings. I chose the period immediately following 2004 because that marked the passage
of a bill against honour crimes. As political machinations go, the bill that was actually passed was a
diluted version of the one first introduced by senator Sherry Rehman. There was much clapping and
clamour then too.

The whole thing repeated itself in March of last year with the passage through the Senate of the Anti-
Honour Killings Laws (Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2014. Meanwhile, international human
rights organisations have devoted budgets and campaigns to ending honour killings in Pakistan. As the
numbers show in both cases, honour killings (to the extent they are even reported) have continued and
even increased.

Here is why. First, legislative initiatives have focused on the legal dimensions of the issue, the latest a
much needed amendment to the qisas and diyat laws that would prevent the pardoning of honour
killers. This is a great idea.
At the same time, like legislative initiatives of the past, it has no teeth at all against the root of the
problem: that women (and men) are considered social capital in a family, marrying them a form of
adding sociological assets, creating relationships that families, increasingly torn by migration and
demographic change, require.

When a woman rebels against this mechanism, not only does the family lose the possibility of capital
accrued from arranging her marriage, her decision jeopardises the futures of remaining brothers and
sisters, their possibilities of making good matches that sustain them in a web of relationships where
individual choice defeats collective security.

In a cultural and sociological system where the family and tribe are still the only and often unitary
form of social insurance against catastrophe, the death of a breadwinner, illness and job losses,
collective control over the individual is the glue that holds everything together.

Honour killers kill because they think they are preserving the system, saving the sisters who did not
run away. To overcome honour killings, a robust state must take the place of the family in providing
basic guarantees of security against debilitating losses; until it does so, the cruel elimination of those
who wish to make their own choices will continue.

The second reason for failure lies in the broken mechanisms of international advocacy, particularly as
they exist in countries like Pakistan, which have faced the brunt of international aggression. Simply
put, since saving brown women became the reason to go to war, stories of hapless victims of honour
killings in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria have served to fuel a moral reason as to
why such imperial overtures are justified. Some brown women, those at risk of honour killings, are to
be saved; others who happen to be near target zones for drones do not.

The hypocrisy of this is not lost on local populations but it manifests in a particularly grotesque way in
the towns and villages of Pakistan that have borne direct hits from American aggression; maintaining
honour, which translates roughly to controlling women, has become a nationalistic goal, a stand for
local sovereignty.

Women are paying with their lives; simply telling their stories has not saved them and will not save
them. This last point is important, for it represents a very troubling moral bifurcation in the aid and
advocacy economy via which campaigns against honour killings are funded and the communities in
which moral change must take place.

The campaigns are providing jobs and causes and in some cases, international acclaim for a few; but
that will never bridge the vast chasm between top-down advocacy and urgently needed grass-roots
change.

The words of the prime minister are heartening. Like most women, I would rather have a leader
willing and sincere in recognising the horror of honour crimes than one who capitulates as so many
others have done.

A Pakistani woman honoured at the Oscars is also a good thing, an inspiring individual victory and a
hopeful honouring, even if it is one that cannot stop future dis-honourings of less lucky Pakistani
women. For that, a deeper effort is required, a local and grass-roots conversation directed at those for
whom family, honour and survival are intertwined, the murderous killing of the rebel justified because
it pretends to be saving all the rest.

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

No honour in honour killing: PM

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has said that killing in the name of honour is a
despicable act, adding that his governments priorities included eliminating violence against women
by empowering them.
Speaking at the launch of a documentary by Oscar award-winning filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy
on Monday, he expressed the resolve to build a progressive Pakistan by giving an equal and
respectable status to women.

Ms Chinoys latest documentary, A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, which has been
nominated for the 88th Academy Awards, was screened at the PM office to highlight the issue of so-
called honour killing.

Mr Sharif said the launching ceremony was a manifestation of the governments resolve to address the
issue of honour killing, which has nothing to do with religion.

He recited a saying of Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) that the most honourable man
is the one who shows respect towards women.

There is no honour in honour killing, he said, adding that he was proud that a daughter of Pakistan
through the art of filmmaking was contributing to the betterment of society by working on challenging
themes. He praised Ms Chinoy for her remarkable work and wished her success in the Academy
Awards to be distributed later this month.

Talking to journalists after watching the film, the prime minister said the societys mindset about
honour killings must be changed. The issue needs to be highlighted at different platforms to create
awareness among the masses.

Mr Sharif said he was keen to provide women a level-playing field in accordance with the vision of
the Quaid-i-Azam for the development and prosperity of country.

Ms Chinoy said women were the greatest asset of the country with their diverse potential ranging from
scaling highest peaks of the world to proving their mettle in sports, or working strong as
parliamentarians, lawyers and scientists.

Despite all these strides, she deplored, women were being subjected to honour killing and acid attacks.
She called for collective efforts to pave the way for strong legislation against honour killing, which she
termed as premeditated murder.

Murder, not honour

Another Oscar nod for Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy; another moment of introspection for Pakistan. Four
years ago, Chinoys award-winning documentary on acid attacks inspired parliamentary and media
debate on the issue and revived activism against the heinous practice. It also sparked new
conversations about the growing role of Pakistani women as national icons, and the fragility of our
national identity, which takes criticism of even the most heinous practices to be a form of treachery if
it is for a Western audience.

Now A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness has stirred a fresh debate. Chinoys film about a
rare survivor of an honour killing was nominated last week. While congratulating the filmmaker, the
prime minister vowed to do no less than eradicate the evil practice. If Chinoy goes on to win the
award, he may have to, at a minimum, raise the issue in a parliamentary session.

I have not yet seen the film, but there can be no doubt about the urgency of its subject matter. The
Aurat Foundation estimates that around 1,000 women in Pakistan are killed annually in the name of
honour. These numbers are likely underestimates. And they are rising. According to the Human
Rights Commission, the number of honour killings jumped 15pc between 2013 and 2014, when
1,005 cases were reported. Men are also victims of honour killing, but the incidence of this is far less
frequent.
The increase in the number of honour killings reflects an improvement in reporting as national and
regional media outlets infiltrate even the most remote rural areas of Pakistan, and stringers are
increasingly aware of womens rights. But it also reflects the changing times.

Advertisement

Pakistani women are more educated, have greater exposure to global political and cultural norms, and
increased access to technology, including mobile phones. Formerly rural areas are becoming
urbanised, leading to greater flows of people and goods through once isolated areas. Women in cities
are increasingly working outside the home. These societal changes mean that women have wider
networks of acquaintances, independent resources, opportunities to make choices and so more ways
to offend their families honour.

Despite the rapid social transition, attitudes towards honour killings including the widespread
notion that the practice is part of our culture stubbornly persist. We are simply not as alarmed as we
should be by the level of support for the practice. According to a 2013 Pew Research Centre poll, 84pc
of Pakistanis wanted Sharia law as the countrys official law, and 89pc among that percentage said that
adulterers should be stoned to death.

My family recently helped a man locate his daughter after she eloped. He explained that he was under
great pressure to take action against his daughter to defend his honour. Other men in his village
warned him that he would be cut off from the community, his family members ostracised and denied
access to communal resources if he didnt take serious action. No one wanted their daughters getting
the wrong ideas about what was permissible if his was able to get away with an elopement.

If the prime minister wants to eradicate honour killings, these are the attitudes he must confront. A
good start would be to stop referring to the practice as honour killing and start calling it murder.
Under our penal code, the crime is treated as a murder, but in everyday practice, moral distinctions are
drawn, against which quotation marks are a poor defence. Changing the language around an issue can
help to change attitudes as those who are now esteemed for upholding their family or communitys
honour would be reframed as base murderers.

By talking about murder, we can also shift the conversation about honour killings away from an
outdated and inappropriate one about indigenous values to a more pragmatic one about the failings of
civilian law-enforcement and our criminal justice system. The murder of women on supposedly moral
grounds continues because punitive action against their killers has been weak. Police fail to apprehend
killers and sometimes even collude with them and enable parallel forms of justice, like jirgas.
They also fail to check the flow of guns and acid used to attack women. Courts, meanwhile, fail to
prosecute killers for lack of evidence, or as laws that allow for easy pardons see many going free.

One hopes Chinoys nomination will get the Anti-Honour Killing Laws (Criminal Laws Amendment)
Bill 2015 back in parliament. The bill, which lapsed in October, seeks amendments to the Pakistan
Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to remove loopholes that allow killers to get off scot-
free. But new laws can only do so much in the face of old ideas. To really eradicate the practice, we
have to redefine our notions of what is honourable.

Ulema councils fatwa declares honour killing un-Islamic

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC) has declared in unambiguous terms that
murder of women or girls in the name of honour is un-Islamic.

The PUC issued a fatwa on Thursday which said such killings were generally devoid of any legal or
Islamic justification. These murders are akin to spreading mischief on Earth.

The decree was issued by the PUCs Darul Iftaa.

Hafiz Mohammad Tahir Ashrafi, the chairman of the PUC, presented a draft of the decree at a national
conference here. The event was attended by diplomats, religious scholars and representatives of
minority communities.

Advertisement

Hafiz Ashrafi said the murders were usually committed due to suspicion and the killers usually didnt
have any witness to support their allegations.

The fatwa was issued on the basis that those killed were generally unmarried girls. Unmarried girls
cannot be murdered even if allegations against them are proven to be correct and there are witnesses
against them, the PUC chairman said.

APP adds: A joint declaration adopted at the conference expressed sorrow over incidents of sectarian
violence and attacks on places of worship of non-Muslims.

Addressing the conference, the Minister for Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Mohammad
Yousuf, urged ulema and the representatives of minority communities to forge a consensus on
promoting tolerance in society.

Referring to reports about incidents of forced conversion in Sindh, the minister said such practices
were prohibited in Islam.

The participants of the conference urged the government to grant legal status to a proposed code of
conduct and make sure that it was implemented.

Following are the main points of the proposed code of conduct:

Terrorism committed in the name of Islam is a violation of Islam, and the leadership of all religions
and sects declare their dissociation from such acts.

No prayer leader, cleric or speaker will debase or induce his followers to debase any prophets,
companions, family members or wives of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH); the four caliphs and Imam
Mehdi in his speech or sermon.

No Muslim sect will be declared non-Muslim and no Muslim or non-Muslim will be declared
worthy of being killed.

Apart from Azan and Arabic sermon, the use of loudspeakers will be completely banned.

Publication and distribution of offensive and hateful books, literature and pamphlets will be
stopped and there will be a complete ban on cassettes and online websites containing objectionable
and hateful material.

Reinterpreting honour killings

THE brutal murder of Farzana Parveen in broad daylight in Lahore and in front of a crowd of apathetic
or complicit spectators has justifiably outraged decent folk in Pakistan and around the world.

That the murder was carried out because Farzana had dared to marry against her familys wishes, has
also brought to the fore yet again the long-lingering issue of so-called honour killings.

Human rights activists have highlighted once again the apparent scale of the problem and intelligent
people wonder where we are headed as a society. Implied in this question and even sometimes stated
outright is that society is becoming more regressive, anarchic and violent.
That Pakistani society is becoming more violent there is little doubt. That the writ of the state has
eroded and there are troubling issues about the interpretations of Islamic law put forward by the
countrys Qisas and Diyat laws, which allow murderers to walk free easily, there is also no question.
But do incidents of honour killings indicate society is also becoming more regressive as a whole with
respect to women?

Advertisement

The argument put forth most often is that the increase in the number of reported honour killings
shows clearly that violence against women is rising which indicates that society is becoming more and
more intolerant of those breaking tradition.

According to HRCPs figures, compiled from media and police reports and not meant to be exhaustive
by any means, 647 women were murdered on the pretext of honour in 2009, 791 in 2010, 943 in 2011,
913 in 2012 and 869 in 2013 (which actually indicates a minor decrease since 2011).

In any case, thousands of women (and men) have been murdered for defying family or social norms
over the past decade or two. Some commentators have gone as far as to claim that the space for
women is gradually being eroded and linked it to a supposed intrinsic hatred of women in Pakistani
society.

The other argument put forth is that this increase in numbers is perhaps simply a result of greater
media focus on the issue. That is, whereas such killings happened earlier on the same scale as well,
they were simply not reported as much. While it is true that media awareness and reach have
increased, at the heart of this theory is the assumption that nothing much else has changed in
Pakistans social fabric.

There are good reasons why both these positions are fundamentally flawed.

Could it be that the increase in the reported number of killings in the name of honour indicates the
exact opposite of what both these theories postulate? That, rather than showing society remaining
static or regressing, what they show is the weakening of old social structures that previously
effectively managed to control womens personal choice, and the greater willingness of women to
challenge these structures? The rise in violence against women, and I do believe there has been a rise,
is more a result of a crumbling social order lashing out as a last-ditch attempt to assert control, when
all other avenues of control have failed.

There are a couple of very good reasons why I am partial to this alternative hypothesis. First and
foremost, all the sociological evidence available to us points in the direction that women are
increasingly becoming more assertive and empowered rather than becoming more submissive the
rise of nuclear families, the increase in the number of women in the workforce, the number of women
in decision-making positions in businesses and politics, the visibility of women in the media, the
enhancement of the median age at which they marry, the demand for womens education and yes, even
the number of women seeking divorces. There are huge disparities within regions in the country no
doubt, but the trends show that public space for women as a whole is expanding rather than
decreasing.

The second reason has to do with what I learnt about the nature of conventional wisdom as a
journalist. In June 1996, the Herald (where I worked as an editor) carried an investigative cover story
about bonded labour in Sindh after a series of cases where human rights activists had freed indentured
serfs chained up by feudal landlords in private jails.

The reporters, Hasan Iqbal Jafri and Ali Hassan, had gone in assuming what everyone took as an
article of faith at the time: that this form of bonded labour was a carryover from what had existed for
centuries. What they discovered was something completely different.
In fact, what the Herald story revealed was that the practice of private jails was a fairly recent
phenomenon. Earlier, serfs could not hope to escape the reach of their feudal lords so there was no
need to chain them and keep them locked up.

But with the development of road infrastructure and communications as well as the weakening of the
power of the old feudal traditions, more and more serfs had the means to escape, and were willing to
take the chance to run away and lose their pursuers in cities teeming with migrants.

Their feudal masters thus had taken to physically preventing their escape. Rather than indicating an
age-old brutal tradition, the chained-and-jailed bonded labour in fact pointed towards a collapse of the
old systems of social control.

Theres no doubt that action needs to be taken to prevent incidents of violence against women. But as
with bonded labour, the doom and gloom in the media over what such incidents indicate about society
may be misplaced.

Ruling on honour killing

I would like to know what the ruling on Honor killings would be and how it should be punished
acording to the Laws of the Shariat.

Published Date: 2007-08-13

Praise be to Allaah.

Killing a Muslim unlawfully is a serious matter and a grave crime. Allaah says (interpretation of the
meaning):

And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath
and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him

[al-Nisa 4:93]

al-Bukhaari (6355) narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: The believer will continue to be
encompassed by the mercy of Allaah so long as he does not shed blood that it is forbidden to shed.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has explained to us the reasons for which it
becomes permissible to shed this blood. He said: It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim
who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in
three cases: a life for a life (murder), zina of one of who is previously-married (adultery), and the one
who changes his religion and forsakes the jamaaah. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6370) and Muslim
(3175). From this it is clear that zina on the part of one who is married is one of the reasons that make
it permissible to kill a person, but the zaani (adulterer) cannot be killed unless two conditions are met:

-1-

He should be previously-married. The scholars have explained what is meant by previously-married in

this case. Zakariya al-Ansaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Asnal-Mataalib (4/128): The
previously-married person, whether male or female, is any adult of sound mind who has previously
had intercourse within a valid marriage. End quote. Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy
on him) said in al-Sharh al-Zaad (6/120): There are five conditions for (being described as)
previously-married:

1- Intercourse
2- Within a valid marriage

3- Being an adult

4- Being of sound reason

5- Being free (i.e., not a slave).

End quote.

-2-

The second condition is that it should be proven that the hadd punishment is deserved, by the
testimony of four male witnesses who saw the private parts meet, or the person should freely admit to
having committed zina, without being forced to do so.

If it is proven that he deserves the hadd punishment, it is not permissible for individuals to carry out
this punishment themselves. Rather the matter must be referred to the ruler or his deputy to prove the
crime and carry out the punishment, because if individuals carry out hadd punishments, that will lead
to a great deal of corruption and evil.

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Furoo (6/53): It is haraam for
anyone to carry out a hadd punishment except the ruler or his deputy. This is something on which the
fuqaha of Islam are unanimously agreed, as was stated in al-Mawsooah al-Fiqhiyyah (5/280): The
fuqaha are unanimously agreed that the one who should carry out hadd punishments is the ruler or his
deputy, whether the punishment is transgressing one of the limits of Allaah, may He be exalted, such
as zina, or a transgression against another person, such as slander. End quote.

Concealing one who has committed this evil deed so that he may repent and set his affairs straight
before he dies is better than exposing him, let alone killing him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) turned away from Maaiz (may Allaah be pleased with him) after he admitted
committing zina, and he ignored him until he had repeated his confession several times, then he
carried out the hadd punishment on him.

Based on this, that which is called honour killing is a transgression and wrongdoing, because it is
killing one who does not deserve to be killed, namely the virgin if she commits zina (fornication), but
the shari punishment in her case is flogging and banishment for one year, not execution, because the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: (The punishment for zina) of a virgin with
a virgin person is one hundred lashes and exile for one year. Narrated by Muslim. The one who kills
her has killed a believing soul whom Allaah has forbidden to be killed, and there is a stern warning
concerning that, as Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

And those who invoke not any other ilaah (god) along with Allaah, nor kill such person as Allaah has
forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse ___ and whoever does this shall
receive the punishment.

69. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in
disgrace

[al-Furqaan 25:68-69]

Even if we assume that she deserves to be executed (if she was previously-married and committed
zina), no one should do that but the ruler as stated above. Moreover, in many cases killing is done on
the basis of accusations and speculation, without proving whether the immoral action even took place.

And Allaah knows best.

Honor killings and Islamic terrorism
Another young woman is killed when her behavior strayed from Islamic expectations

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The world is in chaos, as Islamic violence is setting the tone with terrorism. Whether it be Orlando or
Nice or the Bavarian train slasher, were all told it was a lone wolf transformed into a monster by
radicalization, one of the lefts favorite fabricated explanations.

This supposed radicalization, you see, presupposes that the Muslim terrorist was a perfectly normal
person until the Internet infected him. Like a mosquito, were to believe, anyone is at risk of turning
into a mass-murdering psychopath, shouting Allah Akbar! while torturing people to death.

The so-called honor killing a few days ago of Qandeel Baloch, a young Muslim woman considered
Pakistans Kim Kardashian, reveals the fact of the matter: The seed of terrorism begins at home in the
Islamic world, where honor killings are allowed when a female in the household is perceived as
having dishonored the family. This could include having an unapproved relationship, dressing in a
way that upsets the men in the house, or simply not being respectful enough.

Qandeel was 26 years old, and was on her way to international fame. A ubiquitous presence on social
media, she considered herself a feminist and challenged the status quo.

Last weekend her brother drugged her and strangled her to death as she slept. He was captured and
confessed during a press conference, saying he did it because she brought dishonor on the family
name, and girls are born to stay at home.

Most families have differences, and those disagreements are met with discussions and even arguments.
But in the Islamic world controlled by Shariah law, the killing of the woman is allowed as an act to
reclaim the familys honor.

Pakistans Honor-Killing Law Isnt Enough

KARACHI, Pakistan In Pakistan today, its a sad reality that regressive societal attitudes toward
women label us as commodities, second-class citizens and financial liabilities to our families. This
leaves us open to abusive and violent traditions, dictated by tribal codes and enforced by social and
religious conservatism: child marriages, forced marriages, bartering of women to appease feuds and
the most egregious gender crime, honor killings.

So when Parliament revised its laws this month to stiffen the punishment for honor killings, as well as
for rape, it was a bold move away from a patriarchal system that has traditionally left the protection of
women up to the arbitrary wishes of men who act as their guardians.

But unless the regressive mind-set of those men undergoes a revolutionary transformation as well, the
new laws will be ineffectual eyewash in the face of the misogyny that Pakistani women encounter
every day.

The anti-honor-killing law, a product of a long fight by Pakistani activists, feminists and progressive
lawmakers, mandates a minimum lifetime jail sentence for perpetrators and closes a legal loophole that
allowed an honor killer to walk free if the family of the victim forgave him.

Still, womens rights activists point to flaws. The judge can commute a death penalty into a life
sentence. Perpetrators can deny that their crimes were in the name of honor, and thus avoid the
mandatory term. And it will be hard to achieve convictions that cannot by overturned on appeal,
whether because of lack of evidence or reluctance to exact justice for a woman already dead.
Last year, when Senator Sughra Imam introduced an anti-honor-killing bill in Parliament, religious
leaders protested that removing the possibility of forgiveness made the bill un-Islamic. So voting on it
was postponed until outside events intervened and the government felt pressure to act.

First came countrywide pride in an Academy Award for the worlds best short documentary film, won
by the Pakistani filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy for her portrayal of honor killings in A Girl in
the River: The Price of Forgiveness. Ms. Obaid-Chinoy parlayed her recognition into a promise from
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to enact an anti-honor-killing law. Then, the murder of Qandeel Baloch,
a young social media star who was strangled by her own brother, raised an international outcry, as did
the murder of a British citizen, Samia Shahid, who was killed by her father and ex-husband after she
divorced of her own will.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board
and contributing writers from around the world.

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

See Sample
Privacy Policy

When the new bill was introduced in Parliament, religious leaders again wanted it reviewed by the
countrys Council of Islamic Ideology. But this time, Parliament unanimously rejected the demand.

Still, the mere existence of the law does not obviate the tangled roots of this crime.

Honor killings have abounded in South Asia for centuries, driven by a code that deems women the
vessels of family honor. The killings are not restricted to Islamic societies: They have been reported in
some Hindu and Sikh populations as well. Yet before the mid-1990s, in Pakistan they were committed
secretly, shrouded in shame. Only two decades ago did Pakistans mainstream media begin to report
on them in rural areas.

Typically, a Pakistani woman (or, less often, a man) who was accused of besmirching family or tribal
honor would be sentenced to death by an informal village court or a gathering of tribal elders, with the
conviction almost always based on hearsay. Male adulterers could find reprieve through an apology
and paying material compensation to the aggrieved party usually the wronged husband.

By contrast, a woman would have no chance of defending herself to the all-male court, or of being
pardoned, and she would go to a merciless death by stoning, shooting or being buried alive. Or there
would be no trial; the womans own blood relatives would simply decide that she must die for
committing what her family and society dictated as indecent or dishonorable behavior. In most cases,
the killers were never confronted, or they were jailed briefly, then walked free after being forgiven
by the womans heirs her own surviving relatives.

Women could be killed for wanting to marry of their own choice, or divorcing abusive husbands.
Harmless acts like speaking to a man or boy outside the family became criminalized, for example. In
one case, four young girls who were filmed dancing in a rain shower were executed by their cousin for
immorality.

The methods of death became more and more grotesque: Last year a schoolteacher accused of helping
a friend marry a man of her choice was tied to a van and burned alive. Saba, the young subject of
Sharmeen Obaid Chinoys documentary, was shot in the head by her father, who then left her to
drown. A mother in Lahore killed her 18-year-old daughter for eloping, then ran in the street, shouting
she had done it for honor.
One of the evils of the practice has been that when a woman was killed for honor, inquiries often
revealed a trumped-up adultery case that hid a property dispute, a tribal enmity or even a mans wish
simply to rid himself of a first wife in order to marry a second.

Now the challenge is convincing the entire society that women are equal citizens under the law whose
lives cannot be stolen on the whims of the masculine ego. Pakistan must build a new tradition that
combines legal compulsion with quick and immediate punishment, and most important, a strong and
robust activism that drives home the value of womens lives.

Otherwise, honor killings will simply return to the murky underground existence they had before the
1990s: committed in secret, with the bodies of countless murdered women left in unmarked graves.

Honour killings have plenty to do with Islam, despite claims to refute it.
The Daily Mail has been forced to retract a headline in which it used the term Islamic honour killing.
The full headline read Mother of 4 stabbed to death while her family were at a funeral may have
been Islamic honour killing. The story tells of the tragic death of 33 year old Saima Khan in Luton in
May of this year. Condolences to those who grieve for this young life cut short, and may she rest in
peace.

The press watchdog, IPSO, ruled in favour of a complainant that it was inappropriate to use the word
Islamic to describe the honour killing, since honour killings are not called for by the doctrines of
Islam. The complainant argued that honour killings are rooted in culture, and not in religion, making it
inappropriate to describe any honour killing as an Islamic honour killing. The Mail had argued that
the word Islamic in the headline was a shorthand way of referring to the religion of those involved,
and in court, pointed out that such types of killing are particularly prevalent in Muslim countries.

So who is right here?

Whilst it is correct that the doctrines of Islam do not explicitly allow for honour killings per se, there is
strong evidence that honour killings are indeed particularly prevalent in Muslim countries, as the Mail
asserted; we know this from research such as the work of Phyllis Chesler, to which I have referred in
previous posts. Also of note is the fact that honour killings are found to be particularly prevalent
among Muslim groups even after they move to the West; whereas with other groups, such as Hindus,
moving to the West greatly reduces the prevalence of honour violence. So it looks as if there could
perhaps be some connection to Islam.

But what could this be? Well, just as culture can be distinguished from religion, neither can they be
completely disentangled. Any religion will take its form within surrounding culture, and religion itself
has its own effect on culture its own distinctive patterns of thought, its own typical psychology, its
own morality, its own history and its own store of tales.

So, might there be some features associated with Islam which enables honour killings, even if these
are not directly called for? Yes, plenty. Here are some.

One, although males can be the victims of honour violence as well, it is almost always perpetrated
against women and girls. And although many religions have their share of patriarchal attitudes, within
Islam, females are at a far lower status than men. Men can have multiple wives; can beat their wives if
they fear disobedience; a womans testimony is worth half that of a man; a womans share of
inheritance is less than that of a man; and even in the afterlife, women are said to make up most of the
inhabitants of hell, and those who get to paradise sit around while the men have it away with virgins.
These attitudes of domination and subordination are dyed into the wool of Islam, and surely cannot
help the prevalence of violence against women and girls. As Ive said before with regard to the way in
which sharia law enables men to beat their wives, as John Stuart Mill said, laws must be made not for
good men, but for bad, and a legal system which gives one sex power over another aids and abets the
abuse of the subordinate gender, even in ways which go beyond what is strictly speaking permitted.

Two, you only have to look at the Islamic texts, including the life of Mohammed, to realise that deep
in the heart of Islamic doctrine is a concern with how things appear to others with shame and
honour. Mohammed could not stand anyone insulting him, and such was his fear for the standing of
his reputation that the Quran is full of references to those who accuse him of lying about his
revelations, with dark warnings about what will happen to these doubters. Moreover, he condoned
the killing of those who insulted him and his religion, and had people killed for this including many
women. A man who stabbed the woman who was pregnant with his own child to death for insulting
Mohammed was pardoned by him. Mohammed sent an assassin to stab to death a poetess who had
written a poem he found insulting, while she was asleep with her five children, the youngest still at her
breast. These stories about the prophet of Islam cannot help but have a deep influence on some of its
followers. Reputation and honour is seen to be of prime importance. And it can be used to justify
killing.

Moreover, if the behaviour which the victim of honour killing is accused of is seen as evidence that
they are not properly Muslim, this is relevant too. For in sharia law, penalties for killing non-believers
are less than for killing believers, and in some cases, absent entirely.

Of course, the vast majority of Muslims do not commit honour killings. But most Catholics are not
priests. And some priests are not Catholic. Does this mean that becoming a priest has nothing
whatsoever to do with being a Catholic? Of course not!

In Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Lorelei Lee, the character played by Marilyn Monroe, is accused by her
future father-in-law of marrying for money. Her reply: A man being rich is like a girl being pretty.
You dont marry a girl because shes pretty, but my Goodness, it helps.

Likewise, as we know from statistics about prevalence, and with some thought about the attitudes
within Islam towards women; towards reputation; and towards violence, those Muslims who commit
honour murders may not kill because he or she is Muslim, or because of Islamic doctrines.

But my Goodness, it helps.

The whitewashing of Muslim honor killings in America has seeped into academia. And the PC police
have found a new scapegoat: Hindu Americans.

In January, the Journal of Family Violence published An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes in the
United States by Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. It was an act of
cowardice as well as a shoddy piece of research. It broke absolutely no new ground, either
theoretically or statistically, and is so politically correct that it completely misses an entire forest for
a tree.

The studys first error consists of comparing violence against women in general with femicide. Being
battered is not the same as being murdered.
A classic honor killing is a family conspiracy mainly against a young daughter; fathers, mothers,
sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins sometimes even grandfathers may join in. Westerners
dont often kill their teenage daughters.

The reason Hayes et al. place honor killings within the broader context of violence against women is
clear. They dont want to be accused of Islamophobia or of targeting any ethnic or religious group.

They dont tell us the names of any of the 16 honor-killing perpetrators or the names of their victims.
The phrase Muslim perpetrator and Muslim honor killing appear nowhere. In 10,000 words, only
14 are related to Islam, Muslims, Arabs or Middle Easterners.

Three times, Hayes et al. rail against Western media coverage. They write: Significantly, media
reporters in the United States may be more inclined to cover honor crimes, especially those committed
by Middle Easterners, compared to other fatal crimes because they may be perceived as more exotic
and news worthy. They insist, Reporters may search for an honor crime angle when the victim
and/or offender are of a particular ethnicity or religion ... there is a need to study honor crimes in the
United States that involve victims and perpetrators from other cultures, like India, or extremist
ideologies.

Wrong.

The New York Times, for example, has published a series of articles on Hindu honor killings in India
and has published very few articles about Muslim honor killings in the United States, in North
America or in Europe.

These authors seem not to be familiar with the 2012 study which compared Hindu honor killings in
India with Muslim honor killings in Pakistan and Hindu versus Muslim honor killings worldwide.
Hindus absolutely do perpetrate honor killings (and some of them are quite gruesome), but they do so
mainly in India; they dont bring the custom with them when they emigrate to the West. (Or those who
emigrate are not honor-killing tribalists.) That is why one cannot study them here.

Also, many honor killings in India are perpetrated by Muslims as well as by Hindus.

That study showed that most Hindu honor killings are caste-related and that Muslim honor killings are
triggered by many more reasons, e.g., girls have been killed for looking at a boy, allowing their veil to
slip, being seen without their veil, refusing to marry their first cousin, insisting on divorcing their first
cousin, developing non-Muslim friends, having a non-Muslim boyfriend, being suspected of having an
affair, wanting a higher education, etc.

Ironically, this comparison of Hindu and Muslim honor killings actually supports a politically correct
view: The origin of honor killings probably resides in shame-and-honor tribalism, not necessarily in a
particular religion. I dont understand why other scholars have not yet absorbed this point.

The Koran does not command that a woman be honor-killed. It does, however, demand male and
female modesty and female obedience, and it allows husbands to physically chastise wives.
Perhaps extreme misogynists have allowed superstitious and illiterate people to believe that
committing intimate family femicide is religiously sanctioned.

Neither Islam nor Hinduism, as religious institutions, has worked very hard to abolish honor killing.
The Indian Hindu government has tried to do so. The Pakistani government has not.

Nevertheless, Hayes, Freilich and Chermak bend over backward not to single out any one ethnicity,
religion or nationality except, perhaps, India.