Today, honour killings are prevalent mostly among Muslim populations. This article analyses the social, legal, and religious circumstances of honour-killings in one Muslim state – Jordan – where, according to official Jordanian records, honour crimes lead to the death of 20-25 women yearly. (The real number is probably much higher, with murders hidden as suicide or accidents; a 1998 State Department report estimates the annual number at about 100.) Jordan is of particular interest because of a campaign launched in the summer of 1999 to abolish the reduced penalties for honour crimes, which encountered fierce opposition by conservative forces in the Jordanian parliament. This debate made explicit arguments which are normally kept quiet. The article also includes examples from Egyptian and Palestinian societies.

Understanding the nature of these crimes requires a short review of the notion of honour in traditional Arab society, where a distinction is made between two kinds of honour: sharaf and ‘ird. Sharaf relates to the honour of a social unit, such as the Arab tribe or family, as well as individuals, and it can fluctuate up or down. A failure by an individual to follow what is defined as adequate moral conduct weakens the social status of the family or tribal unit. On the other hand, the family’s sharaf may be increased by model behaviour such as hospitality, generosity, courage in battle etc.

In contrast, ‘ird relates only to the honour of women and its value can only decrease. It translates roughly as the Western concept of "chastity" or "purity." And as with chastity or purity, exemplary moral behaviour cannot increase a women’s ‘ird but misconduct reduces it. In addition, ‘ird trumps sharaf: the honour of the Arab family or tribe, the respect accorded it, can be gravely damaged when one of its women’s chastity is violated or when her reputation is tainted. Consequently, a violation of a woman’s honour requires severe action, as Tarrad Fayiz, a Jordanian tribal leader explains: "A woman is like an olive tree. When its branch catches woodworm, it has to be chopped off so that society stays clean and pure."

What behaviour amounts to a violation of family honour is not precisely codified. Basically it involves an unsupervised contact of a female with a male that may be interpreted by society as intimate. Such contact can be trivial: a 15 year old Jordanian girl was stoned to death by her brother who spotted her "walking toward a house where young boys lived alone." As for rape, society perceives the violated woman not as a victim who needs protection but as someone who debased the family honour, and relatives will opt to undo the shame by taking her life.

But murder is not the sole remedy for rape or other violations of a woman’s chastity. An alternative is marrying the woman off. The marriage is supposed to be with the person who violated her honour, although marrying the woman to someone else is an alternative. If a rapist-victim marriage takes place in Jordan or some other Middle Eastern states, the criminal investigation is stopped, though the rapist may still face criminal charges if he divorces his wife within five years "without a legitimate reason."

The murder of women to salvage their family’s honour results in good part from the social and psychological pressure felt by the killers, as they explain in their confessions. Murderers repeatedly testify that their immediate social circle, family, clan, village, or others expected them and encouraged them to commit the murder. From society’s perspective, refraining from killing the woman debases her relatives. Here are examples:

An Egyptian who strangled his unmarried pregnant daughter to death and then cut her corpse in eight pieces and threw them in the toilet: "Shame kept following me wherever I went (before the murder.) The village’s people had no mercy on me. I couldn’t bear it and decided to put an end to this shame."

A 25 year old Palestinian who hanged his sister with a rope: "I did not kill her, but rather helped her to commit suicide and to carry out the death penalty she sentenced herself to. I did it to wash with her blood the family honour that was violated because of her and in response to the will of society that would not have had any mercy on me if I didn’t….Society taught us from childhood that blood is the only solution to wash the honour."

A young Palestinian who murdered his sister who had been sexually assaulted: "Before the incident, I drank tea and it tasted bitter because my honour was violated. After the killing I felt much better… I don’t wish anybody the mental state I was in. I was under tremendous mental pressure."

Another Palestinian who murdered his sister. "I had to killer her because I was the oldest (male) member of the family. My only motive to kill her was (my desire) to get rid of what people were saying. They were blaming me that I was encouraging her to fornicate… I let her choose the way I would get rid of her: slitting her throat or poisoning her. She chose poison."

Murder has its intended social effect, permitting the family to regain its original social status. The murderer in the fourth case cited above went on to tell how almost ten thousand people attended his sister’s funeral; once she was dead, society again embraced the family.

Some Arab states distinguish legally between honour-murders and other types of murder. The former are dealt with by a separate clause in the penal code that allows the murderers to benefit from reduced penalties or even to avoid punishment altogether. In Jordan, for example, sentences for honour murders usually range from three months to two years imprisonment. This light treatment follows from the Jordanian penal code, where two articles deal with this matter:

In most cases, murderers build their defence on Article 98, whose language is somewhat reminiscent of the Western concept of "temporary insanity". Indeed Jordanian politicians, like Senator Muhammad Kaylani, believe it to be so. "If a man finds his wife in bed with someone else, and he kills her immediately, " Kaylani explained, "then he should not be punished because he was overwhelmed by his emotions." Jordanian courts use the notion of temporary insanity very freely, as can be seen from the following case: A man murdered his sister because he believed her "immoral" behaviour had led to his own divorce. The court’s transcript says that on October 4, 1999, the defendant was hiding behind parked cars waiting for his sister. When he saw her walking in the street with two men, he "became enraged", drew a gun, and shot her three times in the head. The court based itself on Article 98 and sentenced him to six months imprisonment because he committed his crime "in an act of fury."

In mid-1999, Jordanian human-rights activists managed to enlist the Jordanian crown and government to assist its campaign to win tougher penalties for honour-murderers. Although Jordanian legal history records only one case in which a murderer was exempt from penalty on the basis of Article 340, the human rights campaign focuses on this article because it explicitly condones honour-killings.

The government’s proposals to abolish or amend Article 340 met with fierce resistance from the public and its leaders alike. Clearly, honour murders enjoy the approval of the majority of Jordanian society. A Jordan Times survey revealed that 62 percent of Jordanians oppose the amendment of Article 340, mostly out of fear of "moral corruption in society." To answer this fear and improve the bill’s prospects, the government appended to it tougher penalties for adultery. The Jordanian senate passed these changes but the lower house rejected them in November 1999.

During the lower house sessions, it became clear that on the issue of honour killings, the Jordanian members of parliament (MPs) share the sentiments of the public. Most MPs argued that the bill contradicted the conservative nature of Jordanian society. MP Mahumud al-Kharabsha, speaking on behalf of thirty-one fellow MPs, warned that the amendment would harm the Jordanian family and remove the element of deterrence implied by Article 340. Some politicians even expressed sympathy with murderers who cannot be expected to control their feelings. "A man, as a rule, cannot tolerate acts of immorality," explained MP ‘Abd al-Majid al-Aqtash, "so how can he be expected to tolerate an act of immorality that is related to him personally?"

In an attempt to solve its disagreements with the lower house, the Jordanian senate’s constitutional committee came up with the following proposal: apply the same exemption to women who kill husbands caught in adultery. Surprisingly, this proposal, which is unlikely to save women from being killed, won the support of some elements in the women’s rights movement. Nevertheless, it was torpedoed by the Islamic Movement, which objected to such equality in the "license to kill."

An Islamic politician, ‘Abd al-Baqi Qammu, of the Jordanian senate, further explained "whether we like it or not, women are not equal to men in Islam. Adulterous women are much worse than adulterous men, because women determine the lineage." These statements were a prelude to the unequivocal endorsement of honour crimes by the Jordanian Islamic movement.

In late January, a second attempt by the government to pass its bill was again blocked by the lower house after a mere three-minute discussion. Hence, the fate of Article 340 is to be determined in a joint Senate-lower house session sometime in the future. However, the joint sessions held since then altogether ignored Article 340, putting a question mark on the government’s resolve further to deal with this hot potato.

What is the Islamic view on honour killing? The state’s religious establishment asserts that honour killing is unconnected to the Islamic religion; in contrast, the Islamic party in the Jordanian parliament sees honour killing as part of Islam’s code.

The religious establishment in Jordan views honour killing as a remnant of pre-Islamic Arab tribalism, for Islam prohibits the "taking of the law into one’s own hands." The Jordanian king’s advisor on Islamic affairs, Sheikh ‘Izz ad-Din at-tamimi, stated that if a woman is proven guilty of adultery, the person entitled to carry out her punishment is "a specialised employee" designated by the government for such a purpose. The prohibition on taking the law into one’s own hands does not amount to a moral denunciation of honour crimes; rather, it is a criticism of the technical transgression of authority. This notion is conventional in the Arab world; thus Egypt’s ifta’ Council of Al-Azhar University, a leading religious authority of Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa stating that applying the punishment on a female caught committing adultery or found in an adulterous situation, "should be up to the ruler."

The Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF) disagrees. In the heat of the Jordanian debate, this parliamentary coalition of several Islamist groups, most of whom affiliate with the Muslim Brethren, issued a fatwa that declared honour killings are seen as favourable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the IAF’s Ifta’ committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honour killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, "negates the values of virility advocated by Islam." Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on "the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honour, property, and blood." The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that "cancelling Article 340 would contradict the Shari’a." Thus the Jordanian Islamic Movement has suddenly declared that honour-killings are part of Islamic dogma rather than a detestable remnant of tribal paganism.

For several reasons, the Islamists’ view of the relation between Islam and honour killings is more connected to the reality of religious influence on the practice of honour murders than that of the religious establishment. In other words, the influence of Islam on the conduct of Muslims is not limited to what is written in sacred texts; rather, it includes cultural perceptions of Islam. First, there is the fact, noted above, that the Jordanian public and its elected representatives endorse men punishing their women-folk by a nearly 2:1 margin.

Second, if honour killing originated in pre-Islamic Arab tribalism, it has long since been incorporated into Islamic society and thereby become common throughout the Muslim world, including India, Pakistan, Turkey, and the Balkans. In Muslim Kosovo, for instance, thousands of Muslim women raped by Serbs during the war were abandoned by their husbands.

Third, honour killings fit into a wider pattern of customs that flow from the texture of Muslim life without specifically being required by Islam, yet still enjoy the blessing of Muslim authorities. Female circumcision, now more often known as female genital mutilation, is another example: common mostly in Muslim African countries, it is not mentioned in Islam’s sacred texts and did not originate in Islam. Yet in those countries, religious authorities associate this practice with Islam.

Fourth, it bears noting that the policy of "not taking the law into one’s own hands," which dominates Islamic authorities’ circles, is less than an unequivocal moral and religious prohibition of honour murder. The refusal of Islam authorities to unambiguously denounce honour killings signals to the public that this practice does not necessarily contradict Islam.

Fifth, the already ambiguous Islamic objection to honour killings becomes even less effective when considering the way mainstream Islamic scholars interpret the Qur’anic verse (4:34) that legitimates wife-beating. This verse states: "Men are responsible for women…So virtuous women obey (their husbands)…Admonish those of them on whose part you apprehend disobedience, and keep them out of your bed, and beat them." Various Islamic rulers have contemplated this verse in an attempt to regulate the beatings. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, dean of Shari’a at the University of Qatar and a leader of the Muslim Brethren, advocates non-painful beating:

Other Islamic scholars have come up with their own recommendations on wife-beating. The Islamic rulings section of the Palestinian Authority’s daily newspaper forbids stabbing. There is a consensus that the husband should avoid leaving bruises on his wife’s body, and all scholars agree that wife-beating is the husband’s last resort. Still, it is recommended when a couple finds itself on the verge of divorce: "It is better for the husband to beat his wife a little, to make her feel she was wrong, than to destroy the family through divorce."

The faith, in short, cannot be confined to the narrow boundaries of the Qur’an and other early holy sources. It includes developments and interpretations that occurred after the sacred texts appeared.

Although the movement to end honour killings must come from within Muslim societies, they can be helped by the outside world. The international community should, first and foremost, establish its stand on the problem. A United Nations report issued in January 2000 dealing with extra judicial, summary, or arbitrary executions came close to establishing honour killings as a violation of basic human rights. The special rapporteur, Asma Jahangir, condemned honour killings as "practices affecting the right to life." Her report specifically condemned governments which maintain exemption and token penalties for honour murderers; she commended the Jordanian government and crown for their initiative to amend the Jordanian penal code to conform with international standards.

It may be a while before reduced sentences for honour murderers are abolished from the laws of Arab states. Yet the campaign against Article 340 of the Jordanian penal code has already proved successful in at least one important aspect: it shattered the silence that shielded these atrocities.

Yotam Feldner is a researcher at the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute. This is an edited version of an article which first appeared in Middle East Quarterly (December 2000), all rights reserved.