Thursday, February 19, 2009

Aasiya Hassan's Beheading an "Honor Killing"?

Well, the hyenas are out in the comments to my most recent post on the beheading of Aasiya Hassan, "Islamist Decapitation and Western Apologists." The intensity of the comments, which are not just analytical remarks, but crude ad hominem attacks, raises the question of why? What's at stake for these people, these nihilists who can see no fundamental distinctions in this crime?

Indeed,
Repsac3 has distorted the basic issue out of all proportion, for example, on Mark Steyn's remark that, "If Muzzammil Hassan decapitated his [wife] as an Islamic ritual, then his entire professional life — Mister Moderate Muslim — was a lie." Steyn is not asking "if Hassan's beheading was an Islamic ritual killing"? He's indicating the stakes for allegedly "moderate" Muslims and cultural relativists in how the outcome of this Islamic barbarity is framed. Indeed, as the Buffalo News reports:

While Muslim leaders have urged against applying cultural stereotypes to the crime, advocates for women linked the killing to attitudes in Muslim societies.

“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.

She decried the scant national media attention paid to the story, which broke the same day as the commuter plane crash that killed 50 people in Clarence.

While domestic violence affects all cultures, Muslim women find it harder to break the silence about it because of a stigma, she said.

As I reported earlier, and citing Timothy Furnish's, "Beheading in the Name of Islam," Muzzammil Hassan's method of killing is rooted in ancient Muslim culture and tradition. Because Mrs. Hassan had just filed for divorce, the overwhelming likelihood is that Muzzammil would lose face among the Islamic communty's business investors if his wife's independence indicated dishonor to a Muslim man.

According to Phyllis Chesler in her update, "Cold, Premeditated, Ritual Murder. The Honor Killing of Aasiya Z. Hassan. Part Two," Aasiya Hassan's sister has spoken to the fact that Mrs. Hassan had been beaten and bruised over a period of 8 years. This violence is being seen as not simply "domestic violence," but Muslim-generated cultural subordination to the male head of household.

Indeed, think about it? Why beheading? Why did Muzzammil resort to the barbarity of beheading in killing his wife? WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SHOOT HER? That would be "American-style" if this man is so moderate and assimilated. No, this killing is not a case of spontaneous patriarchical rage? This is methodical, premeditated religious ritual. An understanding of this is found only within the context of medieval practice. Muzzammil deliberately chose the method of killing known around the world as THE CRIME OF CHOICE among the most extreme aderents to Islamist barbarity and terrorism. This is jihadi justice and honor in the home. Had Muzzammil indeed been so "moderate," he certainly wouldn't have risked the image of the assimmilated, secular Muslim community he cultivated by adopting a method of killing straight out the 8th century.

As one of the readers at Daniel Pipes' blog notes:

The hard question that needs to be asked here is how a supposedly "moderate" Muslim figure like Muzzammil Hassan ended up committing an act (an apparent honor killing) that represents one of the most barbaric attributes found in Middle Eastern and South Asian cultures.

Aasiya Hassan's independent actions brought dishonor upon the family pride of Muzzammil Hassan. While attorneys for Mr. Hassan reject the portrayal of pride and honor as motives for Mrs. Hassan's murder, some women's advocates remain convinced:

Advocates for women — some of them Muslims — have called for the community to acknowledge religious and cultural traditions that stigmatize divorce and heighten the danger of violence in divorce cases.

**********

UPDATE: Roger Gardner weighs in on this "debate":

Are we seriously going to debate this issue? Have we slipped that far down that slippery slope of multicultural pc nonsense? Have we abandoned all reason, all common sense, merely to show our respect to a bloodthirsty cult that poses as a legitimate religion? Have we learned nothing in all this time? Are we determined to continue our roles as useful idiots? Will we just ignore all that we have learned about the treacherous duplicity of the Muslim world, the evil machinations of its political arms, most noticeably in the recent scandals of that serpent's nest CAIR?

How can we seriously consider such a question? How can we still be this naive, this clueless, as to the nature of the enemy in our midst?

Was it murder? My God! What are we becoming? Are we now going to change our very vocabulary to suit our most recent - and most dangerous - immigrants?

To pose this as an either/or question presumes that there are two possible answers. And to make that preposterous presumption is to denigrate everything we stand for.

Yes, Roger, the leftists denigrate everything we stand for.

20 comments:

Greywolfe said...

see also, my post for this afternoon. Same topic, more statistics. This was no random act. this was a culture thing. As I've said, "Evil is as Evil does."

joe six-pack said...

In Japan, you had to kill yourself for being dishonored.

These guys kill you.

And look how hard it was to break the Japanese of this. Generations.

We do not have this much time.

Husna said...

It wasn't an honour killing. He was married twice before, once to a non-Muslim woman with which he fathered two children, and once with a non-Muslim woman. Both divorced him because he was abusive. Divorce is accepted amongst Muslims without shame. Shame in divorce is a Christian hang-up.

The shari'a depends on the rule of law; without the rule of law, no legal system (including the shari'a) can exist. Under shari'a law, it is Mo Hassan who has apparently committed murder and it is him who would be executed, not the wife.

Roger W. Gardner said...

Hello and thank you for the mention. We are fellow warriors in these wars of barbarism versus civilization. Despite the disingenuous aplogetics of your commenter Husna, the beheading in question is a perfect example of this bloodthirsty culture of death. Sharia law is nothing but the formalization of its inhumane precepts. Islam is the enemy. Sharia is its code. We will not be confused nor deterred by their propagandists.

JBW said...

But Don, you stand for so many great and wonderful things that it's hard for me to denigrate them all. Please eliminate five of the least important of them from your principles so that I can catch up.

And I have to say that this is a very telling little cross-section of your fan base in these comments. "Islam is the enemy. Kill 'em all! Woo-hoo!" You guys are all great but know that you'll always be my favorite, Greywolfe.

Sup, CS.

Donald Douglas said...

Husna:

Actually, beheading is a Muslim "hang-up." I notice you glossed over that one little detail.

repsac3 said...

There is nothing new in this post... Just more speculation and bigotry repeating the lie that when a Muslim man does it, it must be because of his culture or religion.

This may turn out to be an honor killing... But until you can back your statements about "methodical, premeditated religious ritual" with facts actually from this case, you might just as well be telling a fairy story.

In fact, you are telling a fairy story.

Yes, I do think islam teaches antiquated & un-American ideas about the role of the sexes in society. Like other religions, they also do not look kindly on homosexuality, pre- & extra-marital sex, abortion, ... I think that's called "tradition." And yes, there are some countries where the penalties for violating these traditions are severe, and I'll even go so far as to admit that there are Imams who would like to see those same penalties in place here in America. But here in the western world anyway, they are the fringe elements, and not the rule.

If, as it appears, some of you are determined to believe that all Muslims are, by nature or nurture, evil beings who cannot be trusted or tolerated, there is nothing I can do or say to disabuse you of your bigoted & fearful notions. I believe you are preaching hate and going against all this country stands for, but why should you care what I or others think? I am, after all, just a muzzie sympathizer... Still, I hope your God forgives you for what you say and do...

repsac3 said...

One more thing...

If Islam is the enemy, and Muslims are evil, what does that say about the victim in this case, Aasiya Hassan, who was by all accounts a far more devout Muslim than her murderous husband?

Something you might wish to ponder as you say again that Muslims need to be converted or killed (Coulter) or whatever it is you imagine the final solution to the "Muslim problem" to be...

Donald Douglas said...

You've clearly lost the argument, Reppy, when you've got to start calling people racists and dropping unhinged non sequiturs.

Tom the Redhunter hammered you at the previous entry on the topic, so you're tucking your tail now.

cracker said...

A slight reprieve, with reppy in mind...

Short of Greywolfe, I dont think anyone here is calling for the "kill em all, see told ya" bit.

What I believe that is being said, and comparisons are being drawn.

Yes, the world is full of murderers and rapists,and crimes are committed for many reasons.

And in this specific case its worth discussing the FACT that.....

That ones religious beliefs can empower one to unbelievable acts of cruelty.

So

Does Islam ( or an extreme form of Islam) condone, honor killing?

If yes, why? to what end?

Is this Ok behavior in the United States.

The desire is not to dilute the reality of the situation.

Let me know if I'm off base here

cracker said...

or just see the professors next post......

repsac3 said...

Yes, Cracker... As I've repeatedly said, there are fundamentalist Muslims who do believe in & preach in favor of honor killings. Why they do so, I do not know, but it is pretty sick.

And no, no murder of any sort should be (or is, if ya ask me) tolerated as "OK behavior" here in the US. If you believe you've seen me say otherwise, I invite you to confront me with quotes of my doing so.

All I have done is question the speed with which this murder has been deemed an honor killing by some, and why it is primarily those on the political right who are doing so. While asking those questions, I have repeatedly said that it may turn out to be just such a killing, but that everyone lacks sufficient facts to call it one at this point.

I do think it biased to see a Muslim man & think honor killing, when in the case of a black man with facts not all that dissimilar (OJ Simpson; history of domestic violence, brutal violent murder of estranged wife just short of decapitation) no one did the same.

While I agree that it's far more possible that Aasyia was the victim of an honor killing than Nicole, and that it is something that should be investigated, no one; not Donald, not FoxNews, not Phyllis Chesler, or the fine(?) folks at FrontPage Mag has the facts to summarily declare this an honor killing... ...and yet, they all do. Why?

As to whether Greywolfe's the only one who seems a little biased against the Islamic faith or Muslims in general, I think we must be reading different comments here...

When one says "Islam is the enemy" or "The notion that Aasiya Hassan's husband was not in fact a moderate, and that he murdered his wife according to ancient Muslim culture and tradition, puts the lie to left's claims that Islam is just another religion - culturally equivalent - and that conservatives are 'racist' by identifying Muslims as a clear and present danger to national security on the basis of their beliefs." or "This is a religion whose leadership argues over how big of a stick the Koran allows a man to hit his wife with.", we're not talking about a minority of one view, here... Just substitute Christianity for Muslim/Islam and see whether you feel any different about whether some amongst us are just the tiniest bit bigoted against a particular religion/culture... (and having read some Leviticus, I'm not sure how off base that little switch would be, ya know...?)

While we Christians have grown away from our older & more barbarous and backward traditions more quickly than have our Muslim brothers and sisters, I do think there is hope for them, but I'm not seeing much support for that point of view here... I'm not so sure there is such a thing as a good Muslim, given the derision I'm picking up surrounding the idea of a "moderate Muslim."

Of course, Cracker, YMMV...

repsac3 said...

Noting the mention of Daniel Pipes, I just wanted to put him down as agreeing that people should reserve judgement as to whether or not this was an "honor killing" until they have more facts.:

Bridges TV, a Wife's Beheading, and Honor Murder - Daniel Pipes Blog:

"No, this is not at all obviously about domestic violence. We do not know enough; it could be crime of passion or it could be something much colder and yet more vicious, namely an honor crime." ... "It is too early to conclude whether Aasiya's murder is an honor crime, domestic violence, or yet something else."

And, as those comments are no longer fresh, having been made last Friday, one more recent link:
"We don't know enough, in short, to draw conclusions."

I agree with pretty much everything Mr Pipes said on the subject of honor killing and this crime, including the fact that it'd be just as wrong to outright dismiss (or allow anyone else to dismiss or fail to investigate) "honor killing" as a possible motive for it.

dave in boca said...

After leaving the State Dept where I was an Arabist [3+S, 4-R], I came back from a private sector job in the Middle East and for about a year, served as a consultant for NAAA, the National Association of Arab Americans. I've probably met [and admired] more Arab Americans than the rest of the readership on this site.

Back in the mid-'80s, Arab Americans were trying to assimilate while exerting as much influence on ME issues as possible. Sadly, since 9/11, a new streak of violent reactionary Islam, really an unrepresentative Salafist heresy, in my eyes, has asserted itself and come to the fore. [I say in my eyes, because when I was Political Officer in Saudi Arabia, the Embassy asked me to get the "real scoop" on which sects the Wahhabis regarded as legit, and the action of the Buffalo husband would be regarded as haraam."

The US has over 3 million Arab-Americans and perhaps 5-6 million Muslims in all [not the exaggerated CAIR figures]. Of those, perhaps only 1-2% would agree with the beheading, which still means 60-120 thousand Muslims, perhaps.

The murder should be considered a case of spousal homocide, as "honor killing" is more a local [albeit confined mainly to Muslim cultural areas] custom, confined to extremist nutjobs who "believe" they are committing an act in line with their religion.

For what it's worth, the Saudis when I was there for over 3 years regarded honor killings as murder [except if a senior prince ordered it done, as in The Death of a Princess.] Saudi Arabia is almost as corrupt as the despicable Democrat Party functionaries now running Congress!!

Greywolfe said...

would someone please show me either here or on another site where I've said kill all muslims? I've said kill all militant muslims, yes. I stand by that. They are easily found. Just look for the ones that are cutting their wife's head off because she wants a divorce, or wearing a bomb vest.

As for the equating Islam and Christianity in any way, please. Go to a Christian Church. They may preach against trusting a Muslim, but they don't preach killing them.

And repsac3, in regards to your comments on Leviticus, that's Jewish law. Christ fulfilled the laws requirements so the offerings in the temple became unnecessary. Christ became the offering that covers sin. His death meant that the wages for sin need not fall on the believer. That's why he said that he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it.

For a non-believer, there are many things in the Christian faith that are either taken out of context or just misused. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just didn't know the rest. When in doubt, do ask.

repsac3 said...

As for the equating Islam and Christianity in any way, please. Go to a Christian Church. They may preach against trusting a Muslim, but they don't preach killing them.

I have seen no Christian Church preach against trusting Muslims, either. It saddens me no end to hear from a believer such as yourself that there are those that do. Such a thing has never taken place in any church I have attended or even heard about.

And repsac3, in regards to your comments on Leviticus, that's Jewish law. Christ fulfilled the laws requirements so the offerings in the temple became unnecessary.

While jews are no longer requiring offerings in the temples either, I somehow doubt that Christ is the reason they no longer do. And while folks like you & Grace do try to remove it whenever it's no longer convenient, the Old Testament still appears in our Christian Bibles, and many of the stories they taught me in Sunday school came from those earlier chapters.

Yes, they are antiquated, and the products of another time & place (just like the Koran). But from eating shellfish to baptism, many good christians still follow rules set forth in the Old Testament. Jesus did not make the old books as obsolete & unnecessary as you seem to be claiming, here.

For a non-believer, there are many things in the Christian faith that are either taken out of context or just misused.

Curious that you refuse to offer the same benefit of the doubt to Muslims and their book of faith, while demanding that level of understanding for your own faith & holy book.

The fact that there are so many peaceful Muslims here in the US & throughout the world tells me that your interpretation of their holy book and indeed their whole faith & culture is similarly taken out of context or being misused, but your milage may vary...

I can't speak to your willingness to kill any Muslims. Up to now, I don't recall your making any such statements. But any statement that starts (or implies) "All Muslims are..." is a sweeping generalization that is probably factually wrong, and more than likely bigoted, one way or another. (The same is true of any statement beginning "All Christians...", "All Americans..." , "All Democrats..." or "All guys who wear hats...")

It'd go a long way toward making this a better country if folks would criticize the individual and his bad act, rather than any/every group to which the individual willingly belongs or was born into...

Greywolfe said...

Actually repsac3, the reason that the Jews don't make sacrifices anymore is because the only place they are allowed to make such sacrifices is in their temple. Unfortunately the second temple was sacked and razed by Titus in 70 A.D. They will not be able to rebuild it, as prophesied, until the dome of the rock is removed, as it currently sits on the site of the Jewish temple.

That is a whole other can of worms to get into, prophetically speaking, but I'll leave it alone for now.

As for giving the Muslim religion the same benefit of the doubt as Christianity, there is an important difference. The Old Testament and New Testament are different chapters in the same story. The linking and transfiguring of the story is the appearance, death, and resurrection of Christ.

In that act, he fulfilled the law of Moses, thereby removing the need for sins to be covered in the blood of animal sacrifice. He became the sacrifice.

The Koran also, has two different chapters to its story. The first part is peaceful and the second militant. And interestingly enough, the more militant passages comes from later in the Koran.

But wait a minute, you might be thinking, the fact that his revelations changed means there are conflicting passage in the Koran, right? So can't believers pick and choose what they want? Unfortunately, the Koran itself tells the believer how to handle its own contradictions. It says if a revelation contradicts one that came before it, the new one overwrites the earlier one. This is the principle known as "abrogation." The bad news for us infidels is that all the intolerant and violent passages abrogate the earlier tolerant and peaceful ones.

You need to research the Koran and Islam. Don't just spout what the media puts out there. Or the "moderate" Muslims. Do the research yourself, then make a judgement.

repsac3 said...

Grey, I can't speak to anyone else's beliefs about holy books or prophesy, but I trust you'll understand if I choose not to put a whole lot of stock in what you're telling me as regards what Muslims really believe or what Islam really teaches.

Frankly, I'm not even so sure I'd take your word for what most Christians believe, particularly if you actually do attend a church where they preach against trusting people of any (or worse, all) other faiths. Neither the Roman Catholic churches I attended as a child, or the Unitarian Universalist fellowships (or the one or two time Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, or any other denominational services) I've attended in adulthood have ever done any such thing. While there may've been a wee bit of condecension about those unfortunate enough not to be _____, like us, no priest, pastor, or rabbi ever suggested that others were not worthy of our--or God's--unconditional love and trust.

I just don't share your cultural or religious view of Muslims and, as Donald and I are discussing elsewhere (See "Kamran Pasha" post), I believe that some here, including you, my friend, are espousing a biased and bigoted view of a whole lot of worthy people.

Greywolfe said...

As to the history of the Koran, it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of doing my homework. You want to trust people blindly repsac3, that's up to you. Personally, I find it useful to actually RESEARCH things before I make an opinion on them.

There is a marked difference in the writings of the Koran between the times when Muhammed was in Mecca and later when he was in Medina. As the Koran, itself says, the later revalations are the ones that take precidence over the first. These things are undeniable. Unless you engage in revisionist history.

repsac3 said...

You want to trust people blindly repsac3, that's up to you.

Nowhere did I say anything about trusting anyone's thoughts or beliefs about Islam or any other religion blindly. Research is a fine thing. In fact, I'm doing exactly what you're suggesting. I'm not blindly accepting what you claim about Islam or about Christianity, simply because you say it. I find it odd that you didn't understand this, the first time.

One essential part of research is examining the sources one chooses to put stock in for overt or latent bias, as well as for overall scholarship, expertise, and degree of respect amongst one's peers in the subject in question. Not all sources are equally reliable or worthy of consideration. I trust you agree.