On June 27, 2006, the two murderers of a 19-year-old honour killing victim, Ghazala Khan, were sentenced to life in prison by a Danish court. On September 23, 2005, Ghazala Khan, a Danish Pakistani, was gunned down by her own brother at a suburban Danish railway station Her crime was marrying a man of her own choice. Her husband Emal Khan survived the attack despite being shot in the abdomen. Seven other people, including an aunt and cousins, were convicted of being accessories to the murder. Perveen Khan, Ghazala's paternal aunt who had maintained contact with the couple and acted as the family's informant about the couple's whereabouts, cajoled and wheedled a reluctant Ghazala to meet her father and brother at the station for a supposed reconciliation. Following Ghazala's murder, her father Ghulam Abbass, the owner of a taxi service and reputed to be one of the wealthiest members of the Danish-Pakistani community, continued trying to kill Emal Khan, even while he was recovering in hospital.

Ghazala Khan is hardly alone in her tragic and untimely end. On July 14, 2006, the killers of 25-year-old Samaira Nazir, a British Pakistani girl, were sentenced to life in prison. In a story unparalleled in the grotesque cruelty of its execution, Samaira, who had defied her family by marrying an Afghan immigrant, was held down by her mother while her brother stabbed her more than 18 times. Her two nieces, aged two and four, were made to watch as their young rebellious aunt was given the treatment deserved by girls who defy the will of their family. When the police arrived at the behest of a neighbour who heard Samaira's screams, they found her bloodied body in the hallway of her home. A silk scarf had been tied tightly around her neck and her throat sliced three times. The two nieces, their clothes spattered with blood, watched as their aunt's body was carried away to the morgue.

Despite the alarming details of both cases, little has emerged in terms of condemnation by the European Muslim community. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the leading representative organisation of the Muslim community in Britain, has yet to denounce the killing. In the single statement on honour killings available on the group's website, the MCB asserts that the problem is found only "in a very small section" of the British Muslim community. Furthermore, the statement defensively asserts, that "such killings are not restricted to Muslim families but occur also in Sikh and Christian families".

In a position paper that follows the statement, the MCB continues its defensive rhetoric by reiterating the fact that the worst forms of punishment for women who bring dishonour to their families "affect only a small percentage of women" and that "women from other faith groups may be subject to similar attitudes from within their communities". The remainder of the report treads the delicate line between asserting the validity of Koranic injunctions that regard all extra-marital sexual relations as sinful while also condemning honour killings that are often avowedly perpetrated by family members to punish women who stand accused of just such sexual relations. While the MCB's position paper urges Muslim leaders to "take an unequivocal stance against behaviour that is direct violation of Islam", it seems that no MCB leader actually considers such advice worthy of notice. "Unwillingness to deal with the issue," the MCB asserts "is the result of an inherent distrust of perceived `Western' attempts to malign Islam in the interest of global politics."

If reticence of the British Muslim community in the face of Samaira Nazir's brutal killing exposes the shackles of denial that bind British Muslims, the apathy and indifference of Danish Muslims is just as blatant. The same Danish Muslim community that was so vocal in condemning the publication of cartoons against the Holy Prophet is callously silent when faced by the gruesome murder of one of their own. Abdul Waheed Peterson, a well-known Danish Imam, says that he does not regard the honour killing as "their case" despite the fact that in "many people's minds it will be connected to Islam". Other Danish Muslim organisations refused to issue any statements on the killing or the sentencing of the nine murderers of Ghazala Khan.

The obstinate silence of European Muslims and their leaders in condemning these horrific crimes and their efforts to pin the blame of their apathy on a fear of fuelling Islamophobia represents the dilemma facing the Muslim world. Be it terrorism, honour killings or female genital mutilation, Western Muslim leaders have become adept at using the excuse of misguided interpretations as a means of shifting responsibility away from themselves. It is undeniable that while Islamic doctrine itself does not support either terrorism or honour killings, many Muslims engage in these acts specifically by claiming that they are to be religious duties or that they have religious sanction. While misguided interpretations may indeed play a part, offering this hackneyed and rather overused explanation does not obliterate the reality that the actions of these Muslims increasingly define Islam for the non-Muslim world.

Furthermore, this distinction between the doctrine of Islam and the actions of Muslims is one that has been resorted to far too often. Particularly in the Western Muslim case, it has been set up as a decoy that insulates moderate Muslims from taking responsibility for what goes on in their communities. The recipe for denial is simple: the first step minimises the impact of the problematic view or practice by emphasising its unpopularity and reiterating its occurrence in a "very small percentage of Muslims"; next, examples are cited that indict other cultures and communities where the problematic practices may also have occurred and finally a few generalised Koranic verses that condemn violence and promote egalitarianism and justice are cited. Dictated by the fallacy that acknowledging problems within is an indelible mark of surrender to the enemies of Islam, these limited reactions fail to develop potent antidotes for the scourges ravaging the faith from within.

In the case of terrorism where international scrutiny is high, Muslim leaders promptly issue strongly worded statements that decry acts and declare sympathy for the victims. As terrorist attacks continue and ravage the world from New York to Karachi and Bali to Mumbai, prompt declarations emerge that deprecate the barbarity of the attacks and reiterate again and again the fact that Islam is a religion of peace. Following the familiar recipe, the problem is often rationalised away once adequate expressions of sympathy and concern have been provided.

Comforted by the truth that Islam itself is a religion of peace and that there is no doctrinal support for terrorism or misogyny if one follows the "correct" Islam, Muslims in the East and the West remain largely inactive and apathetic to the ravages that such extremist and misogynistic interpretations of their faith have on their faith as well as the world around them.

While countless sermons across the Muslim world on any given Friday are devoted to the insidious and nefarious tactics of Islamophobes that want to malign Islam, and millions of dollars are devoted to excavating the image of Islam as a religion of peace by distributing pamphlets and holding open mosque nights, little time or intellectual energy is devoted to cleaning house from within. Similarly, while much effort is expended on ensuring that new generations of Muslims remain pious in observing proper Islamic dress codes and dietary rules, little is done to ensure that they are aware of the evils of terrorism. Organisations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the MCB devote immense efforts to documenting incidents of Islamophobia. At the same time, nearly all the anti-terrorism material available on the websites of these organisations are directed toward the larger public rather than Muslim youth who are most vulnerable to the propaganda of extremist and distorted interpretations of Islam.

Many Muslims are especially susceptible to the tendency to hold internal reform hostage to external geopolitics. Discussions emphasising the necessity of development of initiatives that acknowledge and combat misogyny and terror inevitably devolve into tirades that enumerate the geopolitical injustices Muslims across the globe are subject to. In a distorted expression of supposed solidarity, the unjustified and gruesome deaths of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebanon are used to construct an ideological wall that requires a conscious and purposeful denial of the atrocities perpetrated by Muslims. If the history of the world is any testament, making internal reform conditional on the cessation of all atrocities against Muslims is akin to eliminating its remotest possibility.

One catastrophic result of elevating Islamophobia to a status that invalidates all necessity for reform is that many Muslims, in their obstinate belief that all critique is borne out of a desire to malign their faith, resolutely refuse to accept the existence of any problems in their community. In a much-cited Pew Research Poll, it is reported that 56 per cent of British Muslims and 46 per cent of French Muslims do not believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. Given the vast amounts of evidence establishing the identity of the 9/11 hijackers, this stubborn and misguided denial demonstrates the delusion that pervades the communities.

The resulting intellectual stagnation has thrust Muslims into even deeper isolation and denial, which is concertedly destroying the possibility of wresting Islam from the clutches of decline. Moderate Muslims, on whose backs the hopes for redemption of the faith are so optimistically constructed, are the very people whose apathy is at the root of such devolution. When confronted, they too limit their involvement to verbal condemnations of both terrorism and misogyny, believing that their own lack of positive support for either are adequate vindications for their inaction; Thus unwilling to ostracise extremists openly from their mosques and communities, they remain content in their apathy and fully assuaged by a self-righteous and often misplaced sense of victim-hood.

Caught in this grotesque and absurd web of rationalisation and apathy, girls like Ghazala Khan and Samaira Nazir are murdered not once but twice. They are killed once at the hands of their families which consider their lives worthless if not lived according to the dictum of their fathers and brothers and a second time by their communities who consider expressing sympathy and outrage for their deaths as an act traitorous to their religion and deleterious to the image of their community.

These girls, like the thousands who die in terrorist attacks, are victims not simply of misogyny but also of denial; a resolute, all-consuming denial that fails to be moved into action by their plight. To extricate these lost lives from the abyss of meaninglessness, all those Muslims that proudly wear the mantle of moderation must realise that adherence to faith exacts a duty not merely to defend Islam from those without, but more crucially from those within.

Thank you for writing this article, Rafia. It is an astute social critique that cuts to the quick and brings to the forefront truths that must be faced and dealt with if the global ummah hopes to thrive in the future. The only questions I have are (1) how the reform that you call for can be initiated and embraced by Muslims all over the world, and (2) who you think is capable of leading such a dramatic change? Thanks again for your wise words.

>> The only questions I have are (1) how the reform that you call for can be initiated and embraced by Muslims all over the world, and (2) who you think is capable of leading such a dramatic change? Thanks again for your wise words.

No more saviours. We want to clean this mess up .. we do it by ourselves. A responsible representative Ummah that operates on civilised principles and gets behind the reform and growth of its people and victims of social injustice. Encouraging liberal and open minded thinking in our communities, reform of madressa systems, discouragement of moralism, encouragement of respect for others...

A muslim woman in the south african community was disowned by her own son for running a safehouse for women vicitims of abuse. Its no wonder his choice stems directly from religious ideology.

Thanks Rafia ... but we need your article published in the free press and discussed in madrassahs .. actually we need discussion in madrassahs

assalaamu alaykum

Excellent article. I especially liked:

At the same time, nearly all the anti-terrorism material available on the websites of these organisations are directed toward the larger public rather than Muslim youth who are most vulnerable to the propaganda of extremist and distorted interpretations of Islam.

Do you know of a good source which can be used to discuss Muslims' justifications for terrorism or killing female relatives and why these justifications are wrong?

Maybe the only time they'll know its wrong is when someone smacks them upside the head and tells them they better stop or else...

OmarG ~ smack upside the head .. this is murder.

BUT, since the girls family are entitled to forgive each other, the marriage done without the consent of the parents .. the judgement in "shariah" was a pardon for the murderers before the victims even knew they were about to be killed by a complacent society.

assalaamu alaykum

I was actually hoping for a serious response. I teach in a Sunday school, and the children are 12-15 years old. We do go over things like "killing is wrong, beating is wrong, etc." but I don't believe that is effective in combatting the ills we're talking about here. It's too easy in the pressure of a situation to forget the "do"s and "don't"s.

Perhaps a literary treatment of the situation, in which the students get a chance to excercise their ethical muscles a bit, would be more effective.

Anyways, any real suggestions?

wassalaam
Ayman

Ayman, it is a real suggestion; in American slang, the phrase just means getting physically tough with someone Ghulam; sorry for the unintentional conveyance of meaning. But, seriously, is it possible to reason with people who not only show a propensity for violence even against women, but also have a consenting sub-culture? OK, so you don't have to beat the guy, but Ayman, someone has to stand up to such people and tell them thier actions are NOT acceptable; but be prepared to get beat or to be called a bad Muslim and be prepared to have others in the community agree with the abuser. We can run around in circles all day finding hadith which say only a lowly man resorts to beating his wife, but they will always find something else which says they can; its simply what they want to beleive so others have to find a way to "convince" them that its wrong.

It may take years, decades or even a generation or two to sap the cultural foundations of our community's silence on familial abuse; in the meantime, I just don't think its at all ethical to allow it to continue until the abusers decide to stop on thier own voilition.

This article reminded me of a recent situation in my own community. While not nearly as serious as murder, it certainly brought up the issue of a sort of "code of silence" or an unwillingness to "rock the boat". The mother of one of our good friends passed away recently and we attended the Janaza prayer, after the prayer we left to go to the cemetary for the burial, which is about 45 miles out of the city we live in. I drove to the cemetary with the daughter-in-law and granddaughter of the deceased as well as a few other women. In addition there was another daughter and a few granddaughters in attendance. After arriving at the cemetary we stood a good distance back from the men who were around the grave, and after some significant dirty looks we were eventually told to leave by one of the brothers whom the family had never met before. I informed the "brother" that the son of the deceased wished for his female relatives to attend the burial and he repeated that we were not "allowed" to be there. Long story short, after repeated incidents, including the son being harassed we elected to leave to avoid causing any addtional distress to the family members. After the fact we visited with the Imam (who did not attend the burial), and were told that the families wishes should take precedent and that there was no reason that women could not attend. He went on to elaborate that good manners would require that the men step back from the gravesite and allow the women acdess to the gravesite.
This being said, no one was willing to relay this to the brothers who have been preventing women from attending. Even the Imam stated that their views were so rigid that it wouldn't do any good. So the feelings and consideration of the women in the community and the actual authentic teachings of Islam are less important than stepping on the toes of this mysoginistic, cuturally inspired "brothers".
This issue is critical to our ummah. I think one of the main reasons the participation of youth in the Mosque is limited at best ,is because they are very aware of this hypocrisy which is so prelevant. This has to change from within. Most of the time it is women and girls who are the biggest victims of this mentality.

>> Even the Imam stated that their views were so rigid that it wouldn't do any good

but thats just it .. the crime isn't a woman attending the gravesite but that women are prevented from exercising their choice.

A woman will be beaten by her husband but she would be discouraged from the divorce (which should be her right) in equal measures as the man would be discouraged from beating her .. which is not his right. One is wrong .. the other isn't .. but within the language and rulings of jurisprudence, there is more of a burden on the woman. That filters through to society and everyone raises their hands and says it was wrong for the male to abuse - all the while the damage had already been done.

Alas, this code of silence is probably abetted by organizations like ISNA and CAIR (NB: I said like them, not them specificially). CAIR explicitly declines to get involved in what they consider to be "internal community affairs", and ISNA has made some progress, but they've yet to come down hard on sick individuals who encourage DV from the minbar. People must start speaking up, at all levels of organization, if women and girls are to be safe.

In my experience, even when the community knows that the husband was abusive, either physically or emotionally, in the case of divorce, the wife is usually shunned. Most of the time the husband goes on to immediately remarry (usually an unknowing woman from "back home") and the community accepts the man and his new wife with open arms and plays dumb to his past history.
On the flip side, if a woman so much as step into the gray area (like taking off her hijab) for instance, she is defamed and ostracized.

>abetted by organizations like ISNA and CAIR <

Really? How did you come that conclusion? Probably because you're affiliated with a rival organization(a grab bag of far left extremists and crooks) trying their darndest to sideline them. Politisizing an issue to throw dirt on other them is pretty low, but typical.

>CAIR explicitly declines to get involved in what they consider to be "internal community affairs"<

...and if they got involved they would be accussed of micro-management with allegations of "forcibly bringing sharia" into their lives. We saw that little drama played out in Canada with the pro-regressives and Islamophobes working hand in hand to deny Muslims access to the law afforded to other religious groups. This is assuming ofcourse, that your premise is sound, which it is not.

>>.....and if they got involved they would be accussed of micro-management with allegations of "forcibly bringing sharia" into their lives.

This is true. We don't have an open, expansive, broad based or fair way of managing internal muslim dialogue. This website is great but in reality .. we lack a real broadbased and fair system in which all members are treated equally and have equal say. We ultimately live in societies where our individual rights will be protected better by the state then most collective efforts. Maybe it is the Islamic way that Muslims make advances through personal grassroots efforts .. thereby avoiding the traps of strictly defined legal and political systems. But surely, a greater collective must be founded.

We do not have nearly as much resources as some lobbyists but have a lot more resources than most. And maybe the place to start could be .. by recognising that legal, political and economic systems are already in place in the non-muslim countries in which we find ourselves struggling mninorities. That way we can adequately start defining the places where our collective efforts can be directed.

We can definitely recognise that all muslims irrespective of background must be given basic Islamic education. That all muslims within a country are entitled to Zakaah, sadaqah, lillah etc before charities leave our shores. We also have to recognise that all muslims irrespective of background must be given access to any masjid, have the opportunity to perform hajj and have a say in the mobilisation of muslim communities resources. Maybe even the fair access to a masjid means that places lacking facilities should be given priority over places that just need to expand.

I really respect the fact that muslims in the UK and USA are more politically inclined .. though its obviously related to the extenuating circumstances and environment.

Honour Killing



A man with strict Muslim beliefs would certainly not kill his daughter. Such tragedies have nothing to do with faith or race. Her father could not control his emotions and his un-Islamic action is also liable for punishment under Islamic law. The tragedy could have been avoided if the poor girl was educated in a Muslim school by Muslim teachers. She is a product of de-education by state school. According to British law, the children should be educated according to the needs and demands of the parents but his daughter was educated to be a westernized woman, instead of a Muslim.

This tragedy is an eye opener for all those Muslim parents who send their children to state schools where they are exposed to teachers who have no respect for Islamic faith and Muslim community. There is a negative co-relation between home and school. The prime aim of schooling is to anglicize all children irrespective of their backgrounds. They are victim of institutional racism and Islamophobia. Already there are more than 6000 Muslim teenager girls in the custody of the social services, a product of the mis-education and de-education by state schools. Muslim youth are involved in drugs, prostitution, abandoning families, abortion and high rate of divorce. Muslim children need Muslim schools with Muslim teachers for proper growth during their developmental periods.

The silent majority of Muslim parents would like to send their children to Muslim schools but there are not enough schools to go by. The only alternative left is either British Government should introduce voucher system for parents to choose the school of their choice or designate all those state schools as Muslim community schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslims are in majority. Such schools may be handed over to Muslim educational Trusts or charities for their management. They are in a better position to educate Muslim children in accordance with their needs and demands. This demand is in accordance with the law of the land because there are state schools already managed by private companies.
Iftikhar Ahmad

>> The tragedy could have been avoided if the poor girl was educated in a Muslim school by Muslim teachers.

This kind of logic is not cool dude. You make the victim liable for what is her fathers crime! Her death by her fathers hands has nothing to do with prositution or drugs or decadent western bla bla bla. That you could find fault with westernised muslim youth when its an older muslim cultural practice that resulted in the crime .. its just not cool.

>> This demand is in accordance with the law of the land because there are state schools already managed by private companies.

That may be so, but I would advocate muslim integration into a society rather than a constructed form of segregation. Also, I think your argument is opportunistic because it ignores that her life was not violated by western cultural/legal failing, but by a muslim cultural/legal failing.

>> The prime aim of schooling is to anglicize all children irrespective of their backgrounds.

If you imply the anglican church, then that is surely wrong. But if you imply integration into English society ... whats wrong with that? It is England after all (the incident occurred in Denmark though). Muslim children will be exposed to the social trappings of english (western) society because that is where they live and these are the difficulties that that entire society must face. That they'd have to now face the social failings of eastern societies as well is not just unfair for their integration .. it also undermines their own capacity for good as Muslims. Its not as if Pakistani or Egyptian kids are better off as Muslims than their sisters and brothers in non-muslim countries. Special needs .. maybe .. separate and segregated needs - definitely not.

Anyone find it interesting that you never hear of anyone killing their "son" because he had sex outside of marriage? We all know there would be alot more dead brothers than sisters if this were the case!

Men have urges (award for sexist comment of the year goes to me .. yay I win an award)

>> sex outside of marriage?
> Her crime was marrying a man of her own choice.