"Honor Killing"

Hmm, I bet it's some sort of Jewish conspiracy to make Muslims look bad...

Honour killings are a terrible crime - one which is NOT sanctioned by Islam. I will upvote this because it is a crime that people should be aware of and that we should all try our hardest to stamp out. However, while I accept that the verse you sight is problematic - it becomes a lot more problematic when it is taken out of its historical and Qur'anic context. Furthermore, the verse you cite has nothing to do with the killing of the poor Yazidi girl in this video. The girl was killed for belonging to an ethnic and religious minority - the Kurdish Yazidis - who were persecuted under the secular rule of Saddam as well.

The Qur'anic/historical context. The verse in question - Qur'an 4:34 - is proceeded by the following verse (Qur'an 4:33): "And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things." This verse concerns inheritance and succession. It is stating simply that there is a new system of inheritance - that relatives receive a fixed share, and that any debts left over by the deceased must also be settled out of the inheritance fund. Prior to the revelation of the Qur'an women in the Arabia peninsula had been treated treated appallingly - kidnap and rape were common, as were excessive beatings. Furthermore, women were inherited like property! The Qur'an lead to a social revolution in which women went from being inherited to being guaranteed a fixed share of the inheritance. Now, understandably, this was not an easy sale to the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Particularly since the beginning of the next verse states that men will have to provide financial support to women: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because THEY SPEND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY". Some scholars conjecture that all the talk of obedience was used to sell the idea of women receiving a fixed share of inheritance to the pagan Arabs.

Now the section of the verse that is particularly problematic when taken out of its historical context: "As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)." Firstly, in light of the treatment of women before the revelation of the Qur'an, a light beating - while completely objectionable and condemnable by modern standards - seems light in the historical context in which the verse was revealed. This verse is NOT an open invitation to beat women. Furthermore, the following verse (Qur'an 4:35) states: "And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." This verse states that if there is any disharmony between the two parties then the two parties should enter into arbitration in order to resolve their dispute harmoniously. This verse begins 'if you fear a breach' - in other words, before any problems result in admoniting or light beating appoint arbitraters between the parties.

Overall, in its proper historical and Qur'anic context the verse in question is far less problematic. Taken together the three verses state that women, rather than being inherited, will inherit a fixed share (once any outstanding debts have been taken care of). Women were effectively economically liberated for the first time. Secondly, rather than the appalling treatment of women prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and the complete lack of regulations regarding how a women should be treated, a man could now only beat his wife lightly - and even then only as an absolute last resort. Furthermore, before such extreme measures are permitted, arbitration should be pursued in order to restore harmony between the parties. Again, this was a huge advance in women's rights.

Now literalists - a minority - would look at those verses and argue that they are frozen in stone and that they still apply today. A non-literalist - the majority of Muslims - would argue that those verses were revealed within a particular historical context. The modern world is very different from the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammad. Therefore we must look at the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher aims and objectives of the Shari'ah. What was the reasoning behind the verses? Firstly, that women should receive a fair share of the inheritance of the deceased's estate - and NEVER be inherited. In these modern times, when families are more nuclear and less tribal, that means a greater share than that guaranteed by the Qur'an. Secondly, women should not be subject to violence, and that if a dispute arises between a married couple then arbitration should be used to restore harmony before any unpleasantness occurs. This is the kind of reasoning which was used by the judges in Tunisia to develop a legal sytem based on Shari'ah law, which provides complete equality to women in all areas of public and private life (in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)) - for example marriage, divorce, inheritance, no polygamy, no honour killings etc.

All this is why I can honestly claim that Islam was originally intended to liberate the women of the Arabian peninsula. It's just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by a vocal minority of literalist, ahistorical, misogynists.

Best

Gwaan

P.S. The following video I posted on honour killings in Jordan is worth watching: http://www.videosift.com/video/Riz-Khan-The-Fight-Against-Honour-Killings-in-Jordan Unfortunately it died in the queue - please save it someone!!!. As it points out, honour killing predates Islam.

31 Comments

Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.

Member Login

Sign Up

Account Recovery