Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Bizarre Denialism on Aasiya Hassan Honor Killing

Here's Daniel Pipes discussing the honor killing of Aasiya Hassan at the Jerusalem Post:

A GREAT BATTLE looms ahead on how to interpret this crime, whether as domestic violence or honor killing. Supna Zaidi of Islamist Watch defines the latter as "the murder of a girl or woman who has allegedly committed an act that has shamed and embarrassed her family." Deeply alien to Westerners, this motive has paramount importance in traditional Muslim life.
Brigitte Gabriel, who appeared on last weekend's Real Time with Bill Maher, has no doubts on the correct interpretation, "here's a guy who did it in the name of honor" (at about 3 minutes):

But as Pipes notes, the forces of political correctness are "bearing down" to deny "an Islamic dimension to the murder" (here and here, for example).

With that in mind, I have to admit considerable surprise at
Andrew Sullivan's comments on the left's denialism surrounding Mrs. Hassan's beheading:

Attempts to deny any connection between this kind of behavior and the brutal misogyny of much Islamic culture seem bizarre to me. Obviously, the abuse of women is no community's or religion's exclusive sin ... But the cultural and religious norms that facilitate brutal and often violent patriarchy in Islam make it easier for men to abuse and harder for women to resist.
Of course, Sullivan's opinions are subject to revision at anytime, but the fact the left's most important contemporary blogger (and Sullivan's now
a confirmed leftist) is making no bones about the inherent Islamic roots of this beheading will no doubt cause fits to nihilist denialists everywhere.

See also, "
Moderate Beheading, " at FrontPage Magazine, where Abul Kasem notes:

According to Islam, if a woman disobeys her husband she is disgraced. Therefore, when Aasiya Zubair, the wife of Hassan, resorted to the Western justice system to seek protection from her menacing husband, she had certainly broken the Islamic tenet of complete surrender to the wishes of her husband. Thus, she had dishonoured her husband, his reputation and, most importantly, the Islamic code of conduct for an obedient wife. Therefore, it is not surprising that the killer had to end her life Islamically, to restore his pride, honor and religious conviction.
Kasem cites Koranic scripture, but no doubt crazed lefties will dig down deeper to the wallow of moral confusion.


shoprat said...

If it can't be blamed on the straight, white, conservative, Christian male than it's a general problem that can't be blamed on anyone. That is what we're up against.

repsac3 said...

"Denilalist" Daniel Pipes, in his own words:

"Did Aasiya die in a crime of passion, or to reinstate a family's reputation? Was the violence generic or specifically Muslim? The Islamic Society of North America opts for domestic violence, while the National Organization for Women's New York State chapter sees an honor killing.

The crime at Bridges TV fits neither model exactly, suggesting we need more information to determine its exact nature. But as the forces of political correctness inevitably bear down to exclude an Islamic dimension to the murder, the motive of family reputation must be kept alive."

I have said nothing different.

"I'm not saying I know either way whether this was or was not an honor killing--though the initial reports about the murderer seem not to paint the man as the fundamentalist type that does kill in the name of their religion, even here in America--but I reject any notion that you--or any of your fellow 'experts'--do, either."

"Maybe this will turn out to be an honor killing, but so far, I don't think the facts and opinions of unbiased sources are solid enough to make the case..."

"As I said at Donald's previous offering about this, maybe it will turn out to be the honor killing so many on the right are already pushing it as (in furtherance of some "all muzzies are evil, and therefore deserve it" meme, or something), but the fact of it being a brutal murder of a wife by a Muslim man just isn't enough to sell that angle to anyone who isn't predisposed to believe it in the first place."

"My point isn't that it couldn't be an honor killing--indeed, I've said myself that when all the facts are in, it may turn out to be one--but that 'the math' for calling it one isn't there, yet. My question is only about the rush in calling it one, and isn't it interesting who's doing the rushing..."
(Damn, that was an awkward sentence... If I had that to write over, the end would read ", and questioning the possible political and cultural bias of the folks doing the rushing...")

(You're welcome to search out every one of my comments on this topic, but they all pretty much say the same thing.) Contrary to the way my opinion is being characterized in this post, I've never said anything different, here--or anywhere else:

Thank you for not jumping ahead of the facts as regards Honor Killing - Reader comment at Daniel Pipes Blog, (w/reply from Daniel Pipes)

Certainty and Denial - Another reader comment at Daniel Pipes Blog

If this "reliable source" Daniel Pipes talks about in his Jerusalem Post article regarding statements made by Mo Hassan are verified by a second (hopefully less biased) reporter, they would be pretty good evidence toward proving this was an honor killing.

A reliable source informs me - and this is breaking news - that the police found that Muzzammil repeatedly told his wife that she had no right, under Islamic law, to divorce him. They also quote him stating that Aasiya, because she was beheaded, cannot reach paradise.

So far, Daniel Pipes is the only one reporting this. (I can't even find anyone echoing his report--except here, once I finally post this comment.)

JBW said...

"They also quote him stating that Aasiya, because she was beheaded, cannot reach paradise."

Couldn't they just let her bring her head to paradise in a backpack or something? That seems like too exclusive a club for my tastes.

repsac3 said...

If there's one thing I know for sure, JBW, it's that so far anyway, your club membership is on hold. But Grace may save your soul yet... She's got the Power within, that one...

As-Salāmu `Alaykum, and Blessed be...

AmPowerBlog said...

Repsac3: Are you flooding the comments at Andrew Sullivan's? Are you taking him off your blogroll for "bigotry"? He thinks folks like you are "bizarre" in denial, and for once, I agree.

Eh, I notice you don't address one thing that Brigitte says, a Lebanese Muslim, or Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who actually cites scripture.

It's an honor killing, Reppy.

This post isn't about Daniel Pipes or the commenters at his blog. He doesn't know either way, but I do. He's right of course that the battle is looming over framing this case from Dhimmis like you.

I must say as well that you've developed a little more than an "addiction" with American Power. You're obsessed, man. Claim victory in your own mind, as you will, and rejoice at getting your vwery first link in the blogosphere from Pam Spaulding, but you're striking out here buddy...

repsac3 said...

Are you flooding the comments at Andrew Sullivan's? Are you taking him off your blogroll for "bigotry"? He thinks folks like you are "bizarre" in denial, and for once, I agree.

The flaw in your argument is still the same, Donald...

I'm not denying anything.

It might be an honor killing. Hassan's Pakistani culture might have something to do with the sexist attitude that lead to the killing. I never said that either supposition couldn't be the case. What I said was, you & I, and yes, Andrew too, lack the evidence to say either is true for certain. Pipe's most recent report is the first bit that may change that, assuming it's confirmed.

Eh, I notice you don't address one thing that Brigitte says, a Lebanese Muslim, or Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who actually cites scripture.

OK, let's... First off, EX-anythings tend to be against the thing they gave up. Generally, that's why they gave it up in the first place. Take anything a "former" whatever says about the thing they no longer are with a few grains of salt. They are "former" whatevers for a reason, and there's often animosity over the leaving of that thing.

Second, Brigitte Gabriel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Brigitte Gabriel was born in 1965 in Lebanon to a Christian family." So much for the former Muslim theory... But perhaps all isn't lost...

Third, she obviously has a reason to hate Muslims.

Brigitte Gabriel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In her first book Gabriel discusses her experiences as a Maronite Christian living in Lebanon during the civil war between Lebanese Christians and Muslims in the 1970s. She describes the story of her family and her childhood, hiding in a bomb shelter. She details her opinions that her country's inherent multicultural acceptance of all faiths and cultures including the then dominant phalengel Lebanese Christians, led to Lebanon's ruin by the continuous attacks from indigenous Muslims, other Christian groups and migrant Palestinians."

If I believed that Muslims were responsible for bombing my home & killing friends & family that I loved, and I spent my formative years hiding in a bomb shelter, I might be a little biased against them, too.

Fourth, I'm not sure she managed to get all that many facts of the case correct.
1) Scimitar? Who the hell is reporting anything about a scimitar?

2, 3, 4) Hassan called the police, and bragged that he killed his wife? Really? Funny, but no one else knows anything about this... All the reports I've read say he went to a police station and reported his wife dead. He never confessed at all, bragadociously or otherwise...

5) He did it in the name of honor? Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but no matter how many time you folks repeat it, it doesn't get any more true unless & until you SHOW EVIDENCE of that "fact." She, of course, shows none.

6) Even the stupidity of her claiming that while white murderers try to run & cover their crimes, Muslim killers brag about them to the police (or anyone else) is just more silliness... Where is the honor killer of the Said sisters? Didn't he go to the police & brag, like a good Muslim?

She was correct about the former abuse, and might've known the names of the victim & the perp, but I think that's pretty much everything she managed to get right.

Donald, the woman says "you can't make this stuff up" but then she makes up pretty much everything she says about the case.

If this is who you want to put your faith in, go ahead, but to the larger world, she's an Arab woman with a chip on her shoulder about Muslims, who'll apparently say anything to further her cause.

I don't know what to say about your other buddy, Abul Kasem... He's a Bengali ex-Muslim, and he has a definite position that obviously makes him popular with the Frontpage mag set.

Other Muslims translate & explain the verses differently than he does. Are you suggesting that we all just trust him, because you think he's right, and his interpretation fits the story you wish to sell? Or should we trust the others, who say the verses mean something different, less consistent with your position?

The fact is, I have no idea what the verses "really" mean, and I don't think you do, either. There's plenty of argument over Bible verses too, and that's our "home faith"...

Again, if you want to believe him, you can do so... I'd prefer to get my translations and explanations from people who aren't so obviously biased one way OR the other. Round up a few run of the milll Muslim studies professors or something, & I'll be glad to listen to their thoughts... But folks who write books called "They're Coming to Kill us All!!" (fake title... as far as I know, anyway...) just don't seem trustworthy or unbiased...

He doesn't know either way, but I do.

That's why I love coming here, Donald... Your humility. Daniel Pipes is a piker compared to you. He's unsure, but you know.


Claim victory in your own mind, as you will

I seldom claim anything... I let the readers decide for themselves... (I'll even let them decide on the "obsession" thing and the "striking out" thing, without comment.)