This article offers an extensive hermeneutical refutation of claims advanced by Robert Spencer, an American anti-Muslim author and blogger, an individual known for his polemical critiques of Islam. Spencer attempts to construct a doctrinal pathway within Islam that supposedly sanctions, or at least provides a basis for, extreme violence, particularly filicide, and then connects this to the abhorrent practice of honour killings. His argument, prominently featured in a May 28, 2025, article on Jihad Watch, strategically deploys a de-contextualized reading of the Quranic narrative of Khidr’s encounter with Moses (18:60-82), a selective interpretation of a classical Islamic legal ruling concerning parental non-retaliation for killing offspring (from the Shafi‘i manual Reliance of the Traveller, o1.1-2), and unsubstantiated statistics regarding honour killings. This detailed article will systematically dismantle Spencer’s assertions, demonstrating that they are predicated on profound misinterpretations, the stripping of essential context, and the erroneous conflation of distinct theological, jurisprudential, and socio-cultural domains. The ultimate aim is to expose the fallacious nature of Spencer’s argument and to counter the Islamophobic narrative it seeks to perpetuate.
Deconstructing the Misuse of the Khidr Narrative (Quran 18:60-82)
Robert Spencer wrote:
“In the Quran, a mysterious figure, known as Khidr in Islamic tradition, kills a boy in an apparently random and gratuitous attack. He then explains: “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.” (18:80-81) And according to Islamic law, “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (Reliance of the Traveller o1.1-2). Muslims commit 91 percent of honour killings worldwide. The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honour murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honour murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honour killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honour killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”” (Robert Spencer, UK: Muslim imprisoned for honour murder of niece says ‘In my country murder is normal’, Jihad Watch May 28, 2025)
Spencer initiates his polemic by referencing the Quranic account of Khidr, a figure revered in Islamic tradition for his profound, divinely imparted wisdom. He highlights Khidr’s killing of a young boy, which Spencer characterizes as an “apparently random and gratuitous attack.” Khidr’s subsequent explanation (Quran 18:80-81)—”And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy”—is presented by Spencer as a Quranic endorsement of such violence. This interpretation is a flagrant misrepresentation of one of the most allegorical and theologically rich narratives in the Quran.
The story of Prophet Moses (Musa) and Khidr, located in Surah Al-Kahf, is fundamentally a profound lesson in divine omniscience versus the inherent limitations of human perception and knowledge, even for a prophet of Moses’s stature. Khidr is introduced not as an ordinary individual but as “a servant from among Our servants, to whom We had given mercy from Us and had taught him knowledge from Our own Presence” (Quran 18:65). This “knowledge from God’s own Presence” signifies a special, esoteric wisdom bestowed directly by God, distinct from the exoteric legal knowledge (Shariah) that Moses himself was a primary vehicle for.
Khidr performs three actions that appear destructive or unjust from Moses’s perspective: scuttling a sound boat, killing the boy, and repairing a falling wall in an inhospitable town without seeking payment. Each act is questioned by Moses, despite his promise to remain patient. It is only at their parting that Khidr reveals the divine wisdom underpinning these actions: the boat was damaged to save it from a tyrannical king; the boy was killed because his prophesied future wickedness would have led his righteous parents to spiritual ruin, and God intended to grant them a better child; the wall was repaired to protect a hidden treasure for two orphans, honouring their righteous father.
Islamic scholarly tradition, spanning centuries from classical exegetes like Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi to contemporary thinkers, unanimously interprets this narrative as allegorical and didactic. Its primary purpose is to teach humility, patience, and trust in God’s ultimate justice and unfathomable wisdom, even when faced with events that seem incomprehensible or tragic from a limited human viewpoint. Khidr’s actions are explicitly framed as divinely ordained and unique exceptions, rooted in a direct divine mandate and foreknowledge that ordinary humans do not possess. Therefore, these actions cannot serve as a legal precedent or a moral template for human behaviour. No recognized Islamic legal school or scholar has ever cited Khidr’s extraordinary, divinely guided actions as justification for individuals to commit violence, engage in vigilantism, or pre-emptively punish others based on personal judgment or perceived future threats. To wrench this story from its rich theological and pedagogical context and present it as a Quranic license for “random and gratuitous” violence, as Spencer does, is a severe hermeneutical violence, akin to misinterpreting complex biblical parables or apocalyptic visions as literal, actionable commands for contemporary society.
Contextualizing Islamic Law on Retaliation
Spencer’s second pillar of argumentation involves a specific ruling from Reliance of the Traveller, a respected medieval manual of the Shafi‘i school of Sunni jurisprudence. He quotes the general principle that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right,” but then highlights the exception: “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” Spencer leverages this to imply that Islamic law broadly grants parents impunity for killing their children, thereby constructing a supposed legal foundation for practices like honour killings. This claim is deeply misleading due to critical omissions and a failure to appreciate the nuances of classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).
Firstly, it is essential to understand that Islamic law is not monolithic. Reliance of the Traveller represents the codified opinions of the Shafi‘i school, one of several major schools within Sunni Islam (alongside Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali), each with its distinct methodologies and some differing rulings. Fiqh itself is the product of human scholarly endeavour (ijtihad) to derive practical legal rulings from the primary divine sources (Quran and Sunnah), and as such, these rulings are interpretations, not immutable divine decrees.
The specific ruling that a lineal ascendant (parent or grandparent) is not subject to qisas (the specific punishment of retaliatory execution) for killing their offspring is indeed a majority position among classical Sunni jurists (Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Hanbali). This was often based on interpretations of certain Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad), such as “The father is not to be killed for [killing] his son,” and the legal principle that a parent, as the “source” (asl) of the child’s existence, presents a “doubt” or impediment to the child being the legal cause for the parent’s execution through qisas. The Maliki school, however, notably differed, allowing for qisas against a parent if the killing was premeditated and involved treachery or extreme cruelty.
Spencer’s presentation is deceptive because it omits crucial clarifications:
· “Not Subject to Retaliation (Qisas)” ≠ “No Punishment” or “Permissibility”: This is the most significant distortion. The absence of qisas in this specific scenario does not mean the act of filicide is deemed permissible (halal) in Islam, nor does it imply that the perpetrator escapes all legal consequences. Such an act remains a major sin and a grave crime. Other forms of punishment and redress are mandated:
o Diyah (Blood Money): Even if qisas is inapplicable, the parent would typically be liable for paying diyah (a substantial financial compensation) to the other eligible heirs of the child (e.g., if the father killed the child, the diyah might be due to the child’s maternal relatives or, in their absence, to the public treasury/Bayt al-Mal). This serves as both a punishment and a form of restorative justice.
o Ta‘zir (Discretionary Punishment): More importantly, the ruling authority (the state or judge/Qadi) has the well-established power and responsibility to impose ta‘zir punishments. Ta‘zir refers to penalties determined by the judicial authority for offenses where specific hudud (fixed Quranic punishments) or qisas are not applied, or for acts deemed detrimental to public order and morality. These punishments are discretionary and can be severe, ranging from imprisonment, public shaming, and flogging, to fines, and even capital punishment in cases of extreme depravity, recidivism, or if the crime constitutes a severe threat to societal safety (such as qatl al-ghilah, treacherous murder). Classical jurists were clear that if a parent’s act of killing was particularly heinous, severe ta‘zir punishments would be warranted to uphold justice, protect society, and deter others.
o Kaffarah (Expiation): Additionally, there is a religious expiation often prescribed for unlawful killing, signifying the spiritual gravity of the act and requiring acts of penance.
· Overarching Sanctity of Life: The foundational principle in Islamic ethics and law is the sanctity of all human life, a primary objective (Maqsad) of the Shariah. The Quran unequivocally states: “…whoever kills a soul unless for a soul [i.e., in lawful retribution for murder] or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely” (Quran 5:32). And “Do not take the life which God has made sacred except by right” (Quran 17:33). These universal principles condemn unlawful killing, irrespective of the perpetrator-victim relationship.
· Historical vs. Modern Legal Application: Classical fiqh manuals like Reliance of the Traveller reflect legal thought from centuries past. In most contemporary Muslim-majority nations, national legal systems—often a complex amalgamation of Islamic legal influences, civil law traditions (e.g., French or British colonial legacies), and customary law—prosecute murder, including filicide committed by parents, under state laws. While the severity of penalties can vary, and some jurisdictions may still retain vestiges of leniency influenced by older interpretations or cultural factors, the notion that parents are automatically exempt from prosecution or severe punishment for killing their children is generally false in modern contexts.
· Comparative Legal History: It is also worth noting, as the provided refutation material points out, that historical leniencies or different legal treatments for intra-familial killings, particularly by parents, existed in various non-Islamic legal traditions. Selectively highlighting this aspect of classical Islamic law without such comparative context contributes to a biased portrayal.
Spencer’s isolated citation from Reliance of the Traveller thus creates a deeply distorted picture. He fails to explain the crucial distinction between the absence of one specific form of punishment (qisas) and the applicability of other severe legal sanctions, ignores the overarching Islamic emphasis on the sanctity of life, neglects the diversity of legal opinion within Islam, and disregards the evolution of modern legal systems in Muslim-majority countries. By presenting this classical ruling as an unqualified license for parents to kill their children, he constructs a fallacious bridge to his claims about honour killings.
Honour Killings: A Cultural Scourge Falsely Attributed to Islamic Doctrine
Having attempted to lay a supposedly Quranic and jurisprudential groundwork for religiously sanctioned violence, Spencer pivots to the heinous practice of “honour killings.” He asserts, without credible substantiation, that “Muslims commit 91 percent of honour killings worldwide” and points to legal leniencies in some Muslim-majority regions (Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Syria, Jordan) as evidence of an inherent Islamic sanctioning or tolerance of these crimes. This section of his argument represents a dangerous conflation of deeply problematic cultural practices with the tenets of religious doctrine.
Honour killings are acts of violence, predominantly murder, committed by family members (usually male) against a relative (typically female, though males can also be victims) who is perceived to have brought “dishonour” or “shame” upon the family. The alleged “transgressions” can range from refusing an arranged marriage, seeking divorce, being a victim of sexual assault, to engaging in consensual relationships outside of marriage, or even simply behaviour deemed “immodest.” These acts are deeply embedded in patriarchal power structures and ancient cultural codes of “honour” that view women as property and the primary repositories of family reputation.
Spencer’s claims are problematic on multiple fronts:
· Unsubstantiated Statistics and False Causation: The “91 percent” statistic is frequently cited by anti-Islam polemicists but lacks rigorous, verifiable, peer-reviewed academic sourcing. Such statistics are notoriously difficult to compile accurately due to underreporting, varying definitions, and the hidden nature of these crimes globally. More importantly, even if a disproportionate number of reported honour killings occur in regions with Muslim-majority populations, correlation does not imply religious causation. Honour-based violence is a global phenomenon, not exclusive to any single religion or culture. It occurs in various communities, including Hindu, Sikh, and Christian groups, and has historical roots in many societies, including parts of Europe. It is primarily tied to patriarchal socio-cultural norms rather than religious doctrine itself.
· Fundamental Contradiction with Normative Islamic Teachings: Islamic scripture and normative jurisprudence stand in stark opposition to the concept and practice of honour killings:
o Sanctity of Life and Prohibition of Murder: As repeatedly emphasized (Quran 5:32, 17:33), Islam holds all human life sacred. Extrajudicial killing is unequivocally murder (qatl), a major sin (kabirah) punishable under Islamic law. Prophet Muhammad’s final sermon emphatically declared: “Your lives and property are sacred.”
o Due Process and Prohibition of Vigilantism: Islamic law mandates strict procedures for establishing guilt and administering justice. Accusations, especially of sexual misconduct (zina), require exceptionally high standards of proof (e.g., four reputable eyewitnesses to the actual act of penetration for adultery, a condition so stringent it is almost impossible to meet). Individuals are forbidden from taking the law into their own hands; vigilantism is condemned.
o Individual Accountability: The Quran teaches that each soul is accountable for its own deeds: “And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another” (Quran 35:18, among other verses). The notion that a family’s “honour” can be collectively defiled by an individual’s actions to the extent that it justifies their murder by family members is alien to the core tenets of Islamic justice and individual moral responsibility.
o Condemnation of Harm to Women and Infanticide: The Quran vehemently condemned the pre-Islamic Arab practice of female infanticide (Quran 81:8-9: “And when the girl who was buried alive is asked, for what sin she was killed?”). It also contains numerous injunctions for the kind, just, and equitable treatment of women (e.g., Quran 4:19: “O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by constraint. And do not make difficulties for them… And live with them in kindness.”).
o Condemnation by Islamic Scholars and Organizations: The vast majority of mainstream Islamic scholars, jurists, and major Islamic organizations worldwide (such as Al-Azhar University, the International Union of Muslim Scholars, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) unequivocally condemn honour killings as un-Islamic, criminal acts of murder, and gross violations of Islamic principles. Many Fatwa councils have explicitly declared honour killings to be forbidden (haram) and punishable as murder.
· Misinterpreting Legal Practices in Muslim-Majority Countries: Spencer cites legal issues and leniencies in some penal codes in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. It is true that some legal systems in these and other regions have historically contained, or may still retain, provisions that allow for “extenuating circumstances” or reduced sentences for crimes committed in a “fit of fury” due to “unlawful provocation” related to family honour (often articles derived from or influenced by colonial-era laws like the French Penal Code or Ottoman codes). However, interpreting this as an “Islamic” phenomenon is erroneous:
o Cultural, Tribal, and Colonial Influences: These legal provisions often reflect the enduring influence of deeply entrenched patriarchal and tribal customs that may predate or exist in tension with normative Islamic legal principles. When conservative factions resist legal reforms by invoking “Islamic grounds,” as Spencer quotes Al-Jazeera reporting on Jordan, this is frequently a political manoeuvre employing a distorted or selective interpretation of religion to defend entrenched patriarchal privileges and cultural norms. It does not accurately represent the balanced, justice-oriented view of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence, which prioritizes the protection of life as one of the highest objectives (Maqasid) of the Shariah.
o Ongoing Reform Efforts and Internal Critique: Crucially, Spencer largely omits or downplays the significant and courageous efforts by women’s rights activists, human rights organizations, lawyers, and reform-minded religious scholars within these societies who are actively campaigning to abolish such discriminatory laws and ensure justice for victims. These reformers often argue from within an Islamic ethical framework, emphasizing that such leniencies contradict the core Islamic values of justice and the sanctity of life. Progress has been made in some countries (e.g., amendments in Palestinian law, gradual reforms in Jordan and Syria, though often still inadequate), reflecting an internal struggle against these practices.
In essence, honour killings are a tragic manifestation of deeply rooted patriarchal cultural norms that have no grounding in, or sanction from, normative Islamic teachings. Islam, at its core, champions justice, the sanctity of life, due process, and individual accountability – principles that are diametrically opposed to the brutality and vigilantism inherent in honour killings. Spencer’s attempt to attribute this cultural crime to Islamic doctrine by linking it to his earlier misinterpretations of the Khidr story and classical fiqh is a dangerous and baseless falsehood. The struggle against honour killings in many Muslim-majority societies is, in fact, often a struggle to uphold true Islamic values against deeply rooted, un-Islamic cultural practices.
Unveiling Islamophobic Polemics
Spencer’s argument, as systematically deconstructed, is not merely an academic disagreement over textual interpretation but exhibits the clear hallmarks of a polemical approach designed to vilify Islam. This is evident in his consistent methodological flaws:
· Systematic De-contextualization and Cherry-Picking: Spencer isolates Quranic verses (the Khidr narrative) and specific jurisprudential rulings (Reliance of the Traveller) from their broader textual, theological, historical, and legal contexts. He systematically ignores counter-narratives, diverse interpretations within the Islamic tradition, and the foundational ethical principles of Islam that contradict his thesis. This tactic, as noted in the refutation materials, “distorts the religion’s teachings to paint it as inherently violent.”
· Sweeping and Unjustified Generalizations: He extrapolates from a specific ruling in one medieval Shafi‘i manual to make pronouncements about “Islamic law” as a monolithic entity. Similarly, he moves from crimes committed by individuals who happen to be Muslim to define the behaviour or beliefs of “Muslims” as an undifferentiated group of nearly two billion people, ignoring vast cultural and interpretative diversity.
· Fallacious Conflation of Disparate Concepts: He illogically and anachronistically links an allegorical divine act performed under unique circumstances (Khidr’s actions), a specific classical legal ruling on one form of punishment (non-application of qisas to parents, which does not equate to impunity), and a contemporary cultural crime (honour killing) as if they form a coherent, doctrinally sanctioned continuum of violence within Islam. This represents a profound leap in logic and a misunderstanding of distinct categories of religious thought and social practice.
· Deliberate Omission of Counter-Evidence and Reform Efforts: Spencer consistently focuses on problematic laws, outdated interpretations, or resistance to reform while largely ignoring or downplaying the significant internal efforts within Muslim societies and by Islamic scholars to condemn honour killings, reform laws, and promote human rights grounded in Islamic ethical principles. This selective presentation creates a biased and incomplete picture.
· Imputation of False Causation: He strongly implies, if not explicitly states, that Islamic doctrine causes or fundamentally underpins honour killings, rather than acknowledging these as complex socio-cultural phenomena with multiple intersecting causes, which persist in various communities, often despite, rather than because of, normative religious teachings.
· Argument from Outlier or Worst-Case Scenario: By focusing on the most extreme, isolated, or problematic interpretations and practices, he endeavours to paint a picture of the entire religion as inherently flawed and violent, thereby ignoring the mainstream, normative, and ethical core of Islamic teachings.
This methodological approach, as the provided refutation notes aptly summarize (“This type of argumentation follows a familiar pattern: 1. Take metaphorical/allegorical texts literally 2. Ignore overwhelming contrary evidence 3. Conflating cultural practices with religious teachings 4. Make false statistical claims without verification”), is not indicative of genuine scholarly inquiry, which seeks nuanced understanding through contextual analysis and balanced evidence. Instead, it is characteristic of polemics designed to create fear, suspicion, and prejudice against Islam and Muslims, thereby contributing to an Islamophobic narrative.
Towards an Authentic Understanding Over Polemic
Robert Spencer’s attempt to forge a doctrinal link between the Quranic story of Khidr, a specific classical Islamic legal ruling concerning parental non-retaliation, and the abhorrent practice of honour killings is a profound and dangerous misrepresentation. This detailed refutation has demonstrated:
1. The Quranic narrative of Khidr is a deeply symbolic theological allegory about the inscrutability of divine wisdom and the limits of human perception. It is not a legal precedent or a justification for human-perpetrated violence. Khidr’s actions were unique, divinely ordained, and offer no license for individuals to commit similar acts based on personal judgment.
2. The ruling cited from Reliance of the Traveller concerning a parent not being subject to qisas for killing their offspring is a specific interpretation within one school of classical Islamic jurisprudence. Critically, it does not signify that the act is permissible or that it goes unpunished. Other severe legal sanctions, such as ta‘zir (discretionary punishment by the state, which can include imprisonment or even execution for particularly heinous crimes) and diyah (financial indemnity), would apply. Furthermore, modern legal systems in most Muslim-majority countries have largely superseded or reformed such classical provisions, prosecuting murder under comprehensive state laws that generally do not grant such exemptions.
3. Honour killings are a reprehensible cultural crime rooted in patriarchal and tribal norms, unequivocally condemned by mainstream Islamic teachings. Islam, at its core, emphasizes the sanctity of all human life, justice, due process, and individual accountability – principles that are diametrically opposed to the brutality and vigilantism inherent in honour killings. The struggle against honour killings in many Muslim-majority societies is, in fact, often led by Muslims seeking to uphold the true ethical principles of their faith against deeply rooted, un-Islamic cultural accretions.
4. Spencer’s methodology is characterized by systematic de-contextualization, selective quotation, sweeping generalizations, the conflation of unrelated concepts, and the omission of crucial counter-evidence and reform efforts. This approach is indicative of polemical intent rather than genuine scholarly engagement and demonstrably contributes to an Islamophobic narrative.
Islam, like any major global religious tradition, is complex, diverse, and multifaceted. Its sacred scriptures and extensive legal traditions have been interpreted and applied in a multitude of ways throughout its long history and across diverse cultural landscapes. To reduce this rich and dynamic heritage to a grotesque caricature that serves a prejudiced agenda is a profound injustice to the faith, its billion-plus adherents, and the pursuit of truth. A genuine and intellectually honest understanding requires a steadfast commitment to contextual reading, an appreciation for the crucial distinction between normative religious teachings and deviant or culturally conditioned practices, and a willingness to engage with the Islamic tradition in its fullness—including its internal mechanisms for critique, reform, and its consistent emphasis on universal ethical values such as justice, mercy, compassion, and the inviolable sanctity of human life. The claims advanced by Robert Spencer demonstrably fail this test of intellectual integrity and serve only to obscure truth, sow discord, and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Constructive dialogue, predicated on accurate information, scholarly rigor, and mutual respect, remains the only viable path towards fostering genuine understanding and collaboratively addressing shared human rights concerns, including the urgent need to eradicate honour-based violence in all communities where it tragically persists.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at [email protected]
