Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Canadian Honour Killing conviction: interview with MCC spokesman

Letter to BBC:
You carried yesterday an interview with a spokesman from the Muslim Canadian Congress.  He claimed that (1) the Shafia killings should not be called “honour killings”, but murder for “ego” or similar, and (2) that they had nothing to do with Islam.

But: (1): Honor killing is defined as the “killing of family ... member... due to the belief that the.. victim has brought dishonor on the family...”.  . Mr Shafia repeatedly said, in phone intercepts, that he had killed his daughters because they had impugned his honour,  and in Court repeatedly claimed that the most important thing to him was his “honour” (while of course lying about his involvement; some “honour”...). That is: “Honour” was the sole motivation for the killings.

And (2): Mr Shafia also specifically said that his daughters had impugned Islam. Islamic Law does not mandate “honour killing”, but permits and enables it.  There is to be no penalty under Islamic law,  for the killing of one’s children. The most authoritative manual of Islamic Jurisprudence says:

not subject to retaliation is a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.”
(Umdat al-Salik O1.1-2; 2.4*)
Question: how can the phenomenon of “honour killings” (UN says at least 5,000 per year worldwide), be tackled if the prime motivation and enabler for it -- “honour” and Islamic Law --  are denied, by the likes of the MCC spokesman?
Yours, etc,
* For Umdat al-Salik, see sidebar on left for link: in English it's "The Reliance of the Traveller".  This is a must-have reference guide for anyone interested in Islam and Sharia law.