Islam News @ NYTWould you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
fwiw, i had a left-social democrat friend who was anti-iraq war and a hardcore bush hate send me an email today with the title “pluralism?”. he noted that he normally avoids “anti-muslim stuff.” the link was to the beheading.
thabet, 
abunoor, 
Willow 1:36 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
R, would you like me to start quoting US daily rape/murder/domestic violence/child pornography trafficking statistics here, and framing them in a ‘look at the grotesque doings of the kuffar’ narrative? Because this shtick is getting old.
You of all people should know that narrative can be manufactured out of almost anything, whether it is statistically relevant or not.
razib 1:43 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
R, would you like me to start quoting US daily rape/murder/domestic violence/child pornography trafficking statistics here, and framing them in a ‘look at the grotesque doings of the kuffar’ narrative? Because this shtick is getting old
right, but you have to compare it to the basal value. oranges & oranges comparisons. how many kuffars behead? how many muslims? the only kuffars i know who behead are basically serial killer/insane people.
razib 1:46 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
ok, my fiance just exploded seeing this article on the new york daily news. she’s ranting about why it isn’t the new york times (and no, she’s not racist
Willow 1:51 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
the only kuffars i know who behead are basically serial killer/insane people.
The only Muslims I know who behead are basically serial killer/insane people. What a conundrum.
razib 1:58 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
The only Muslims I know who behead are basically serial killer/insane people.
that’s not true. there’s a fair amount of ethnographic literature on extremists, and many of them are pretty well adjusted and not socially marginalized in an absolute sense (see scott atran’s work for example). and of course, there are muslim gov’s which still behead.
to some extent you could say that anyone who murders is not in their right mind. but there is i think a clinical difference between the mental insane who have some pathology, and the wide range of normal people who engage in inexcusable violence.
aziz 2:00 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
how many kuffars behead? how many muslims? the only kuffars i know who behead are basically serial killer/insane people.
tsk, anecdotal. bring the data!
As Willow (surprisingly had to) point out, the very act of beheading in this specific case was not a religious context but a criminal one. this is a case about domestic violence that is being seized upon to essentially browbeat muslims as a whole.
Willow 2:18 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
AND, I have yet to see a single Muslim entity–a single one–condone this killing. Where are the ‘normal’ Muslims defending a man’s right to behead his wife? If Razib’s right, there should be legions of them.
Avoid the confirmation fallacy. Advice straight from the mouth of your fellow atheist, Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
razib 2:25 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
tsk, anecdotal. bring the data!
ok, ok, that’s fair. and i’ve been procrastinating on the needed lexus search. so no more posts on this until i do that.
this is a case about domestic violence that is being seized upon to essentially browbeat muslims as a whole.
yes, yes. but the thing here is that in the heat of passion (no doubt) he engaged in behavior which muslim extremists are known to engage in in the recent past. this doesn’t mean i think he’s a muslim extremist, but, it does suggest to me a common ecology of ideas among muslims which frankly disturbs non-muslims, but we take some comfort in the idea of a cordon sanitaire between extremists and non-extremists.
Willow 2:38 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Actually, he engaged in behavior which men are known to engage in the recent past…and the long past, and undoubtedly the future. What about the Facebook murder? Or the fact that murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women…murder which is typically carried out by their partners? Or the fact that honor killings are enshrined in the Napoleonic Code? Are you really going to sit there and tell us that possessive sexually motivated violence is a Muslim problem?
If these crimes were carried out by Muslims, they’d be part of your big Muslim narrative. But because they’re not, you seem to feel no need to create a narrative for them. I find that suspicious.
razib 3:18 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
If these crimes were carried out by Muslims, they’d be part of your big Muslim narrative. But because they’re not, you seem to feel no need to create a narrative for them. I find that suspicious.
no, no, of course this isn’t a muslim problem. but in many traditional cultures, a large number of them muslim, male possession of women is justified within their normative frameworks. there’s plenty of intercultural differences in how this plays out. e.g., in colonial america there was sex parity in convictions for adultery in the new england colonies. in the lowland south the pattern was what you might find in most ‘traditional’ societies.
muslims are a problem because they present an ideologically coherent collective challenge to the current state of western values re: sex relations. the fact that a well off american muslim who didn’t self-segregate did this naturally worries one in terms of which set of values muslims identify with.
PI.info 3:26 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
the fact that a well off american muslim who didn’t self-segregate did this naturally worries one in terms of which set of values muslims identify with.
But aren’t you presuming that beheading falls within normative non-Western Muslim values?
razib 3:30 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
But aren’t you presuming that beheading falls within normative non-Western Muslim values?
yes. before the beheading i would have thought it was outside of the normative non-western muslim values. now i’m not so sure. i’m not a muslim, i don’t know what muslims read on the internet, or what the range of opinion is, with an “insider” perspective.
if it turns out the dude was on drugs of had previous mental illness problems then my concerns will abate. if it turns out that he enacted this ritualistic script in a heat of passion crime, then i’m going to be concerned.
thabet 4:09 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Lots drop bombs from great heights on women and children, and are then deocrated by their societies for being heroes…
aziz 4:11 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
yes. before the beheading i would have thought it was outside of the normative non-western muslim values. now i’m not so sure.
define “muslim”. define “western”. i think if you are positing a cultural predeliction then you yourself would also be susceptible. Also, white converts should be less susceptible since they arrive into Islam from a foreign cultural milieu.
If you are positing a theologic predeliction, then white converts should be equally prone to beheading. Yet white converts are also “western”. So you have a type mismatch.
I think this is pretty sloppy on your part, man. usually you are way more rigorous than this.
the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that domestic violence cuts across religion and class lines, and acts of passion (murder) are also the same. If anything it proves that muslims are mainstream, not Other.
razib 4:20 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
i think if you are positing a cultural predeliction then you yourself would also be susceptible.
no i wouldn’t. culture comes mostly from peer groups.
.Also, white converts should be less susceptible since they arrive into Islam from a foreign cultural milieu.
this is probably true. though you have to control for the fact that i’m pretty sure a disproportionate number of white converts are weird in some way (like the asperger’s guy).
the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that domestic violence cuts across religion and class lines, and acts of passion (murder) are also the same. If anything it proves that muslims are mainstream, not Other.
again, it isn’t about domestic violence or murder. it’s about indicators of cultural norms.
Lots drop bombs from great heights on women and children, and are then deocrated by their societies for being heroes…
if a state kills indiscriminately, it’s called war. it might not be right, but that’s just how it is.
in any case, i already addressed this when i pointed that murdering a woman and murdering a woman and raping her dead body are the same in material terms, but have different symbolic valences. similarly, killing enemy soldiers and burying them is different from killing enemy soldiers and cutting their penises off and leaving their bodies to rot.
Tariq Nelson 4:43 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
From this article
“She” being Marcia Pappas, New York State president of the National Organization for Women. I know many Muslim women that would actually agree with that assessment. I have spent my fair share of time in the “trenches” and I can say that domestic violence is a massive problem within Muslim communities. I see it as a cop out to say “well everyone else has this problem”. Not many others use religious justification for this problem.
I don’t know about the dishonor on the family part, but a woman is considered to be more “tainted” when she is divorced. This is also even the case for a virgin over 30. It is nearly impossible for a divorcee and/or older woman to get married in Muslim cultures.
And we all know that there is such a premium on virginity in these cultures that hymen repairs are becoming common.
Willow 4:49 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
My divorced mother-in-law still gets marriage offers at the age of 55. My aunt-in-law just got married for the third time at 52. I think your statement is overly sweeping. Maybe that’s true in desi Muslim cultures and/or the Gulf but in North Africa and the Levant it’s emphatically false.
razib 4:56 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Maybe that’s true in desi Muslim cultures
i don’t think it’s that much of an issue. it is one of the things that differentiates muslims from hindus in north india (hindus have WAY lower divorce rates). though i think the general issue tariq alludes to is what i’m getting at. there are common patriarchal tendencies which exist in most societies. some muslims justify this on explicit religious grounds. i don’t know of any cases of sati with widows/etc. among hindus, but there have been cases of killings in canada involving sikh youth who fell in love with the wrong person (the cases i’m thinking of have to do with caste/class, not religion or race).
i have cousins who have moved to the USA who exhibit the sort of machismo and purity obsession that wouldn’t be too surprising if they were from latin america. i.e., proudly talking about how they fuck “loose” white chix, but waxing how pure bangladeshi women are (who they end up marrying). it’s disgusting, but it isn’t rigged into an ideological framework.
Dan 5:03 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
She also said this:
“This was apparently a terroristic version of honor killing, a murder rooted in cultural notions about women’s subordination to men,” said Marcia Pappas, New York State president of the National Organization for Women.”
which is completely unfounded at least according to the latest reports. I can’t say I agree with your assessment of domestic violence being a “massive” problem in American muslim communities at least, but again this is all subjective. I know it exists, and surely it is a problem, but to blow it up and exaggerate as a reaction to perceived and real hush-hushing by the community isnt a productive way to attack the issue.
Willow 5:06 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Again, have you read a single religious justification for the beheading case?
No one is arguing that domestic violence doesn’t occur in Muslim communities or that it shouldn’t be addressed. But I’m still not convinced it’s more prevalent in Muslim communities than in the community at large. I just haven’t seen any evidence of that beyond hearsay. In my own anecdotal experience, the number of Muslims I know of who were abused (either physically or sexually) by family members is roughly the same as the number of non-Muslims who suffered the same thing: about one out of four.
Ludicrously high and unacceptable no matter where you come from.
If the recent wave of clerical abuse scandals in the US/UK are any indication, domestic/sexual abuse is underreported worldwide.
Willow 5:12 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
*i should amend that to say abused, period, whether by family members or others (like priests or imams) in positions of authority.
Safia 5:27 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
“While it has not been determined whether Aasiya Hassan’s death had anything to do with fanatical beliefs, the community should address the attitudes that make divorce particularly difficult for many Muslim families, Shahram said.”
But if that has yet to be determined, doesn’t calling it a “terroristic version of honor killing,” imply that it had something to do with fanatical beliefs?
I guess, what makes it a “terroristic version of honor killing” rather than the worst type of domestic violence? If he had killed her, but not beheaded her?
I agree with the larger points Pappas is making, about using religious beliefs to justify domestic violence, but I’m not sure how those conclusions can be made in this particular case yet. Unless the guy made some comments to the police when he was arrested, which is possible.
Tariq Nelson 5:57 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
No, but I was speaking of domestic violence in general. Religious justification is given for beating women by many Muslim men in the Qur’an (4:34) and in some hadith narrations (Abu Dawud has an entire chapter on “beating women”). One could argue about whether or not it is “beat (lightly)” or what have you, but the bottom line is that the justification is given – whether one agrees with the interpretation or not – is religious.
Point: very often, this doesn’t come out of a vacuum. Pretending that there is no religious justification will not solve the issue.
On a side note, I can remember vividly when (during the 1990s) Muslims would always claim the high moral ground over “the kufaar”. Khutbahs blasted the ever immoral West haughtily claiming that “We don’t have that in our community!” I actually (naively) believed this too. It is amazing to me how things have changed as now we are happy with moral equivalence with the same “filthy West” we railed against.
Muffy 6:44 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
I don’t feel comfortable classifying/judging this case without more information. Is there any evidence of family complicity in this killing? I thought one thing that made an honor killing unique was that there must be some complicity in the crime within the family or community. I don’t see any evidence of that, but I could be wrong. BTW I’m not one of the types who deny the uniqueness of honor killing and think it’s just “another form” of domestic violence; I do think “Honor Killings” are unique. I’m just not sure there’s enough info to cry “honor killing” on this case just yet.
It’s noteworthy than when I looked up “beheading” on google news search, I also got stories about the Taliban beheading a Pole, a Canadian/Indian Sikh man beheading his daughter, and a teen who beheaded someone in a “thrill killing.”
Willow 6:47 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Domestic violence never comes out of a vacuum. There is justification and moral equivocating (social, emotional, religious, chemical) 100% of the time–there’s a laundry list of ‘reasons’ abusers give for their abuse. No man has ever walked out of a mosque and said “You know, I had no desire to beat my wife this morning, but now that Imam Fasyan has told me it’s okay, I think I’ll go home and give her a black eye.” But the guy who was already beating his wife now has religious ammunition, or so he thinks. I’m skeptical of the idea that this same man would stop beating his wife if Imam Fasyan told him it was against Islam. Islam is against the rape of little boys too, but that hasn’t stopped myriad Quran tutors from becoming pederasts.
I think you (and Razib) are confusing justification with causation, and that is what I object to. If you really think Islam causes domestic abuse, I’m curious as to why you’d stay in the religion. If I thought that, I’d leave tomorrow without a qualm.
Tariq Nelson 7:22 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
I did not say that it caused domestic violence. I simply said that there is a religious justification used for it. If a man is not perceived to be wrong in a particular Muslim community for beating his wife (because of that interpretation), then the problem (as you and I see it) will be more socially acceptable. And when that is the case it is more difficult to fight. THAT is what I am saying
Willow 7:33 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
And when that is the case it is more difficult to fight. THAT is what I am saying
THAT I definitely agree with.
Muse 9:05 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Willow, does it give you pause that, as Tariq said, there is a justification for domestic violence in Islam? It does exist. There are many interpretations of 4:34 that I’ve read, and the one that will prevail is the one that the sane majority of Muslims will agree upon, following upon the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) who never hit a woman or child. But the fact that “beat” (“lightly”, right) is a plausible definition of daraba bothers me to no end, because it is such easy fodder for justification of abuse, and makes our efforts that much more difficult. That, I believe, is what makes this issue of domestic violence in Muslim communities different than in society at large.
Willow 9:30 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
It would give me pause if it was practiced by the Prophet, the ahl beyt or any of the sahaba. Which it wasn’t.
Which leads me to be skeptical of subsequent interpretations of the verse. I find it slightly ironic that drinking liquor is not out-and-out forbidden in the Qur’an either, yet you don’t see people rushing to find grey areas when it comes to drinking…because the Prophet didn’t drink.
Tariq Nelson 9:54 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
I’m only responding in the interest of accuracy. But that is not true (about the sahaabah). At least according to some hadith
Here is one example from Ibn Maajah:
I heard this narration several years ago in a class given by one of my friends who is a graduate of the University of Madinah. He was not advocating the beating of women, but nonetheless presented this hadith (and others) because it exists.
Again, I am presenting this only in the interest of accuracy. It is another issue if one rejects the narrations that showed that some sahaabah beat their wives. But the narrations exist…
aziz 11:08 pm on February 17, 2009 Permalink |
Tariq, its true that such narrations exist. Now we are treading into a much larger issue of hadith accuracy which in some ways goes to the heart of the major political divisions within Islam itself. I think that we need to acknowledge that some muslims may seek to legitimize domestic violence by quoting Qir’an and hadith, but we must emphasize that such rationalizations are always the product of an individual interpretation.
Its certainly been the case that throughout history, hadith have been invented (with isnad spun whole out of thin air) to justify all sorts of actions, and political aims.
thabet 4:25 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
It really depends whether those who say this use it as a means of silencing criticism or of viewing domestic violence as a societal problem.
This was always more of a problem for people with a particular religious persuasion. Don’t throw it on us “all”.
Tariq Nelson 6:47 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
@ Aziz
My point was to respond to Willow’s statement about the sahabah. Whether one accepts those particular hadith (from Ibn Maajah) is another issue, but the point is that those hadith (and there are many) exist and mainstream people use them.
Fair enough.
aziz 8:12 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
tariq, i dont think that mainstream muslims “use” hadith that suggest beating your wife is acceptable (if done “lightly”). a given muslim may accept that hadith, but they arent going to go and beat their wives accordingly. The ones beating their wives are the ones doing so irrespective of what they believe hadith sanctions and doesnt sanction. The issue of domestic violence is not a rational, religiously-derived one (as the islamophobes having a field day with the murder of Aasiya Hassan are insisting).
Tariq Nelson 8:29 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
Again, I agree with that, but as I said to Willow, it makes it more socially acceptable and more difficult to fight when there is a religious sanction given.
I should have been more clear about the mainstream thing. What I meant was that mainstream Muslims use Ibn Maajah and Abu Dawud as sources of canon.
We can all agree that wife beating is unacceptable, but this argument is more difficult to make on Islamic grounds
For example, I know Muslim men that believe that “physically reprimanding” a woman (not extreme beating) is indeed acceptable, but they would not do it themselves
So the issue here isn’t that these hadith cause the beatings. It just makes it more difficult to convince a wife abuser that he is wrong on religious grounds
islamoyankee 8:40 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
A few things to keep in mind about this particular incident:
1. This was Muzzammil Hassan’s third marriage. Divorce is not only an option, but had been acted upon. He had been “dishonored” before. It seems, although I’m not entirely clear, that the divorces were predicated on past instances of abuse.
2. Although MH started Bridges, he himself was uncomfortable visibly identifying as a Muslim prior to 2004.
3. My initial thought was that this was a crime of passion. There is some speculation that this was premeditated because of what they suspect the weapon to be (something that was not at the station), and the fact that they can’t find it.
My personal belief is that this case is one of demonstrating masculinity, as are most cases of DV. Gutting a baby from a mother’s womb is no more American than beheading is Muslim. It is the preferred cultural expression of “I have a big penis.”
islamoyankee 8:43 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
RE: 4:34
Laleh Bakhtiar’s research, with Amina Wadud’s book, are priceless in this regard.
Unfortunately, neither is available online. LB says the Prophet and his immediate family never hit. When Umar did hit, the Prophet reprimanded him.
The medieval translations of the Qur’an into Urdu don’t use “maarnaa,” they use “ToRnaa;” not “hit,” but “break.” The same is true for Persian, it’s “keshidan,” not “zadan.”
aziz 10:31 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
and there is where we fail in our task of framing. why should we even want to make an argument that it is wrong on religious grounds? it is we who invite religion into the debate by doing so.
we must avoid the religious argument at all costs – the argument against beating your wife is simple: its wrong, and (for the neanderthals) its also illegal, and the woman has recourse to law and due process (in theory) to fight back. We must show women how to do that by giving them the reosurces and protection to do it. all within a context where we are inspired by, byut not commanded by, the qur’an or our interpretation
abunoor 11:06 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
I disagree that it is difficult to make the argument on religious grounds. Although I have heard some people try to make other arguments, NONE of my teachers, many of whom are “Wahhabi” “literalists” have ever justified beating one’s wife based on Islamic texts.
Aziz, I’m not a big fan of the word “religious,” but it is a must that arguments on these questions be framed in terms of Qur’an and Sunnah. While other considerations may be able to influence behavior in a certain context, it is precisely through this lens that all questions of “right” and “wrong” must be framed for people who have taqwa….this is exactly what taqwa means.
Tariq Nelson 11:30 am on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
@ Abu Noor
They will not justify ABUSE (which of course is subjective) but they will say that physically reprimanding a woman is within the bounds – considering the hadith and classical scholars writings on the subject
abunoor 12:13 pm on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
Tariq,
Abuse will be defined either as anything that leaves a mark or anything that causes pain. The purpose is not to engage in these things, the physical reprimanding is meant to be symbolic. That is to explain what is meant in the sources, but I just have to repeat, I have NEVER heard any of my teachers, many of whom are “Wahhabis” and “literalists” ever ever advise or encourage anyone to even physically reprimand his wife. That is just my own experience…I know for a fact that it may be different in other countries or if I had chosen to study with other teachers….my point is that it is not necessarily a part even of a strictly orthodox or literalist understanding of the texts.
Anyone who studies the issue, and especially the statements and actions of the Prophet (saw) will be clear on what is right — the existence of domestic violence in our community, like so much else that exists in our community is tragic evidence of the extent to which we have completely neglected and abandoned the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and is NOT in any way the result of holding on to those sources of guidance too tightly. If anyone understands how the Prophet (saw) tried to guide and teach his companions they will see his profound sadness at whatever of domestic violence still went on among them and his profound attempts to remove that from his ummah, just as is the case with many other profound weaknesses that the Prophet (saw) feared for us and tried to warn us against.
Allaah knows best.
thabet 11:34 pm on February 18, 2009 Permalink |
In just my experience, people who justify remaining silent about domestic violence do so on grounds of family name and honour. I haven’t come across people citing hadith or Qur’an (though I don’t doubt there are such people).
thabet 12:07 am on February 19, 2009 Permalink |
Yes, and in the Middle Ages Christian soldiers who killed, even in the heat of battle, were required to pay penance, whereas today Western soldiers who bomb the shit out of people do so within the confines of law, receive military honours and are absolved of these crimes because of strategic importance of bombing a particular location. Not only that but politicians and general public generally see nothing wrong with bombing the shit out of people, and indeed there are often calls from both (politicians and general public) to ‘bomb Mecca’ or wipe out XYZ location to teach ‘them’ a lesson.