Thursday, February 19, 2009

Kamran Pasha: "The Greatest Tragedy of Islam"

Kamran Pasha, a Hollywood filmmaker, novelist and Pakistani-born Muslim, argues that for all of Islam's progressive teachings on the equality of women, the blood ritual of honor killings are the "greatest tragedy of Islam" (via Memeorandum):

As one of the first Muslims to succeed as a writer in Hollywood, I have been interviewed several times on BridgesTV and was delighted by the professionalism and media savvy of its staff. I had never met the Hassans, but I had been proud of their accomplishments. They were bringing an Islam of love, compassion and human brotherhood to the world, while countering the horrific images of violence and misogyny that had tainted how my fellow Americans saw my faith. The Hassans were people I admired - educated professionals and patriotic Americans with a commitment to family and community.

And then I heard how Aasiya Hassan died and I wanted to throw up ....

The greatest tragedy for me as a Muslim is that my faith is associated with such horrific actions that run counter to everything that Prophet Muhammad stood for. To those who know little about Islamic history, it may sound laughable to assert that Islam began as a proto-feminist movement. But it's true. Perhaps the way out of this madness for the Muslim community is to look back at the life of Prophet Muhammad and remember his true legacy as a visionary champion of women's rights ....

So if all this is true, where does this idea of "honor killing" come from in the Muslim world? Unfortunately, it is one of the ugly elements of pre-Islamic Arabian culture that continues to reassert itself, despite the Prophet's efforts to eradicate the practice. In fact, Prophet Muhammad nearly lost his own beloved wife to the madness of the crowds screaming about "sexual honor" ... The greatest tragedy of Islam is that some Muslim men continue to uphold these pagan practices that the Prophet outlawed 1,400 years ago ....

The choice that stands before Muslim men is stark. Do we follow ancient and evil practices, creating a cycle of violence and grief, and use culture as an excuse for our sins? Or do we follow our Prophet and create a better world where men and women treat each other with dignity and love? Do we turn life on this Earth into Hell, or into Paradise? The answer will reveal whether we are Muslims, people who have surrendered themselves to the true God of mercy and compassion, or idolaters, people who fashion God according to their own self-serving desires.

Be sure to read the whole post, "Honor Killing" and Islam."

Kamran Pasha sounds like a reasonable man who would fit the definition of an Islamic "moderate." Here he offers a very balanced take on the Muslim faith and laments how medieval traditions - seen in Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife in a religious ritual killing - indeed represents the worst atrocities inherent to the Muslim faith.

As readers know, common sense and reasonable familiarity with Islamic teaching and culture indicate that cases like this are not "isolated" simply because they are few in number. Such horror is a function of lingering primordial passions, as I've shown
here, here, and here.

Once again, Repsac3 has attempted to demonize and discredit as racist fearmongers those who would shout from the rooftops the truth about Islamic depravity. We need less of these enabling left-wing apologists for Islamic violence and more of the genuine "reformers" of the faith so that right and good will prevail against the forces of barbarity and evil.


**********

UPDATE: Kamran Pasha has responded to this post, here:

I am NOT saying that such horrific acts as "honor killings" are Islamic. The whole point of my piece is that they are un-Islamic and were rejected by Prophet Muhammad, who attempted to end these brutal PAGAN PRE-ISLAMIC practices.
My response is here.

19 comments:

repsac3 said...

More from the article Donald quotes:

Right now there is a great deal of discussion in the media about whether her murder was an "honor killing." And among the more bigoted commentators, there are cries that this horrific murder has proven the "true face of Islam" to the world. That no matter how hard Muslims try to sell an Islam of peace and social justice, a headless corpse of a poor, abused woman will always be its legacy to humanity. ... May God have mercy on the soul of Aasiya Hassan, and on her children and loved ones. May her tragic death serve as a catalyst to end this ancient and un-Islamic practice of "honor killing" forever.
(bold by me, of course)

How does that view, jibe with Donald's description of the author's words?

Kamran Pasha sounds like a reasonable man who would fit the definition of an Islamic "moderate." Here he offers a very balanced take on the Muslim faith and laments how medieval traditions -seen in Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife in a religious ritual killing - indeed represents the worst atrocities inherent to the Muslim faith.

"Inherent to Muslim faith?"

Is that really what Kamran Pasha said, or did he specifically say such behavior is not inherent to the Muslim faith, calling it "un-Islamic"?

Once again, Repsac3 has attempted to demonize and discredit as racist fearmongers those who would shout from the rooftops the truth about Islamic depravity.

"Islamic depravity?"

I question whether Donald read the article he posted, and what the author says about those who would call this an example of "the true face of Islam" (and whether the author would feel the same about one who substitutes the words "Islamic depravity" for "true face of islam.")

If you ask me anyway, Kamran Pasha & I are saying pretty much the same things about pretty much the same people.

It is a good article, and like Donald, I encourage everyone to read it in full and decide for oneself what the author is trying to say...

Donald Douglas said...

You're an idiot, Repsac3.

At the end of your quote you left out one little part: "I hear these words, and I want to cry out "'No! This isn't Islam! This isn't the beautiful religion that brings comfort and joy to a billion people worldwide.' But then I see images in my mind of Aasiya Hassan lying decapitated in a pool of blood and I am left wondering why anyone should listen."

That's right, Repsac3. Why should anyone listen to people like you who bury their heads in black muck of moral relativism?

You are a sick, sick man. People should not laught at you, they should pity you for your depravity. Think again, and read the whole thing, again:

" ... no matter how hard Muslims try to sell an Islam of peace and social justice, a headless corpse of a poor, abused woman will always be its legacy to humanity. ...

And who's fault would that be? The bigots you're looking for? Face it, as hard as you try, with whatever quotes you can find, you refuse to see the truth of this religion.

And recall, "May her tragic death serve as a catalyst to end this ancient and un-Islamic practice of "honor killing" forever."

Ah, an "honor killing, yo! No response to that? I guess Pasha's a bigot too, then, for calling this gruesome Islamic barbarity for what it is.

You are an ugly awful man, Repsac3, totally dishonest, and bereft of one shred of truth and decency.

shoprat said...

One of the great ironies of religion.

The best Christians are the ones who are most like Jesus.

The best Muslims are the ones the least like Mohammad.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks for commenting, Shoprat!

repsac3 said...

I find it difficult to believe that you really do not comprehend what you read, but your reply indicates that this time, that actually is the case.

When Kamran says "... no matter how hard Muslims try to sell an Islam of peace and social justice, a headless corpse of a poor, abused woman will always be its legacy to humanity. ...," he is talking about the bigoted position, which is evident by his placing it just after the previous sentence where he first begins discussing it.

Read the whole section again.:

"And among the more bigoted commentators, there are cries that this horrific murder has proven the "true face of Islam" to the world. That no matter how hard Muslims try to sell an Islam of peace and social justice, a headless corpse of a poor, abused woman will always be its legacy to humanity."

It is the bigoted position that says "no matter how hard Muslims try, a headless corpse will always be their legacy."

And that part that you now wish me to include, where Kamran says:

"I hear these words, and I want to cry out "'No! This isn't Islam! This isn't the beautiful religion that brings comfort and joy to a billion people worldwide.' But then I see images in my mind of Aasiya Hassan lying decapitated in a pool of blood and I am left wondering why anyone should listen."

That is in response to the bigots and their claims that this murder shows the true face of Islam, and that no matter how hard Muslims try to project any other face, it will always be a headless female corpse that will reveal the truth of Islamic depravity.

If you can't see that he's talking to those who make such bigoted statements about Muslims--people like you, rather than me--I cannot help you. That sentence isn't about anyone burying their heads in anything, least of all moral relativism. It's his response to the bigotry that tries to tar the Muslim faith with an endless parade of headless women, now & forever.

So yes, in response to your question, it is the fault of the bigoted commentators and their bigoted minds that hold this view that it gets repeated & propagated from right wing blog to right wing blog. That is what Kamran's saying. That is what I'm saying, too.

And recall, "May her tragic death serve as a catalyst to end this ancient and un-Islamic practice of "honor killing" forever."

Ah, an "honor killing, yo! No response to that? I guess Pasha's a bigot too, then, for calling this gruesome Islamic barbarity for what it is.


Uh, yo, he's saying the opposite of what you are... Where he says it's an un-Islamic practice, you're saying it's Islamic barbarity. That's the opposite, yo.

And contrary to what I think you may be trying to claim, he's not calling this crime an honor killing, either. He says right there at the top that there is debate about it among those in the media, and never once refers to it that way himself. He calls it a murder. He talks about her tragic death. He says she was beheaded. He never says she was or wasn't the victim of an honor killing.

If I had to guess why, I would say that that's because he doesn't know either way. Just like me. Just like Daniel Pipes. And whether you're willing to admit it or not, just like you. Not that that's stopping you from trying.

As so often happens, the rest of your comment is just you spouting a bunch of meaningless ad hominem. As long as you enjoy it, I guess...

Indigo Red said...

Pasha said of the Hassans:

The Hassans were people I admired - educated professionals and patriotic Americans with a commitment to family and community.

Donald said of Pasha:

Kamran Pasha sounds like a reasonable man who would fit the definition of an Islamic "moderate."

Sounds like the same kind of praise. Pasha's admiration for Mr. Hassan may have seemed reasonable and justified at the time he made that naive judgement, but Hassan proved as barbarous as any Islamic fundementalist.

Obviously, Don is far from being naive. However, we have all witnessed time and again that faithful Muslims either practice the many barbarities or tacitly condone those who do. And he is right to point out the medieval traditions... indeed represents the worst atrocities inherent to the Muslim faith. It's more than just some backwards Muslims clinging to their swords and Korans, however. Even Mohammad accepted and practiced many of those ancient practices we find so abhorrant and because the Prophet did so, he gave approval for all time.

How long will Mr. Pasha have us wait til he commits his own act of barbarism? Whereas, I may be willing to sit down to dinner with a thief, I am not going to leave him alone the silverware.

In the late '80s, I had Muslim neighbors. The married couple were from Morocco. I had dinner with them in their home and they were very nice people. Or so I thought until the day he attacked his wife in the Long Beach Mall in the food court at noon and cut off her head in front of hundreds of horrified mall patrons.

Pasha may sound like a "moderate" Muslim, but who the hell knows what one looks like or acts like when so many have finally resorted to animal blood lusts? There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim but the apostates. And since they have left Islam they are no longer Mulims, so I say again, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

Donald Douglas said...

Repsac3: Uh, no, I'm not confused. This was undoubtedly an honor killing simply because of the method of murder, beheading, yo!

Why didn't he shoot her. Beat her with a baseball bat. Drown her. Or even stab her!

He cut her freaking head off you numbskull. What is the matter with you! No quotations marks are needed around "honor killing." It's a big duh, Einstein.

Pasha does not mince words when he says:

"The choice that stands before Muslim men is stark. Do we follow ancient and evil practices, creating a cycle of violence and grief, and use culture as an excuse for our sins?"

Repsac3: I don't normally mention my advanced training and academic pedigree, but I can say that I take it as an insult when you accuse me of not being able to read.

Pashan recognizes this killing for what it is: A ritual killing rooted in ancient Islamic tribal culture. He also recognizes that as long as Muslim men commit these murders conservatives will not relent in highlighting barbarian Muslim practices, and good for them. I'd be happy to debate Pasha on whom are the "bigots" of which he speaks, and I can guarantee you that after one go 'round with me he'd be eating his words. The fact that you are now calling me a bigot with no evidence other than a couple of posts decrying Islamic honor killings reveals you to be beneath contempt. Or, shorter Reppy, "So yes, [the primordial practice of Islamic ritual killing] it is the fault of the bigoted commentators and their bigoted minds ..."

That is reallly bad ...

You're putting yourself out there on a limb, Reppy, but you've got no integrity in any case, so not much to lose.

repsac3 said...

Believe as you will Donald.

You've said nothing new, so I have nothing new to answer. At the same time, I stand behind what I've said up to now, and take nothing back. (I assume you feel the same.)

The words of you, me, Pasha, and everyone else who's discussed this and been quoted are all here and in your other 4-5 posts on the subject. Folks will read and read into them what they will.

Until there is new information or someone offers a new point of view or different thinking on these old ones, I'm willing to leave this discussion here as is.

As I quote on my blogger profile, "We don't see things as they are, but as we are." This certainly appears to be one of those cases...

Kamran Pasha said...

Gentlemen, this is Kamran Pasha, the author of the piece on Huffingtonpost. Let me clarify -- I am NOT saying that such horrific acts as "honor killings" are Islamic. The whole point of my piece is that they are un-Islamic and were rejected by Prophet Muhammad, who attempted to end these brutal PAGAN PRE-ISLAMIC practices.

I am a believing and practicing Muslim and take great pride and comfort in my faith. It is clear that some of the people here wish to portray me as some kind of self-hating Muslim who supports the bigots' view of Islam. But my article speaks for itself, and I encourage you all to read it in its entirety.

As for those on this site waiting for me to "commit acts of barbarism" as a Muslim, all I can do is wish you Peace.

repsac3 said...

Word, yo.

Donald Douglas said...

Kamran Pasha: My post says you are reasonable man who sounds like a "moderate" Muslim, and I have said nothing of "self hate."

But I thank you for stepping into the debate.

You say:

"The whole point of my piece is that they are un-Islamic and were rejected by Prophet Muhammad, who attempted to end these brutal PAGAN PRE-ISLAMIC practices."

I get it. The problem is that no other group in the world today is so identified with this barbarity as are Muslims. Further, scholars dispute your interpretation:

"Groups such as Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad (Unity and Jihad) and Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Hasan bin Mahmud's Ansar al-Sunna (Defenders of [Prophetic] Tradition) justify the decapitation of prisoners with Qur'anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly." The Qur'anic Arabic terms are generally straightforward: kafaru means "those who blaspheme/are irreligious," although Darb ar-riqab is less clear. Darb can mean "striking or hitting" while ar-riqab translates to "necks, slaves, persons." With little variation, scholars have translated the verse as, "When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks."

For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse literally. The famous Iranian historian and Qur'an commentator Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) wrote that "striking at the necks" is simply God's sanction of ferocious opposition to non-Muslims. Mahmud b. Umar az-Zamakhshari (d. 1143 C.E.), in a major commentary studied for centuries by Sunni religious scholars, suggested that any prescription to "strike at the necks" commands to avoid striking elsewhere so as to confirm death and not simply wound.

Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a millennium ago. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur'an, ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali (d. 1953) wrote that the injunction to "smite at their necks," should be taken both literally and figuratively. "You cannot wage war with kid gloves," Yusuf ‘Ali argued. Muhammad Muhammad Khatib, in a modern Sunni commentary bearing the imprimatur of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, says that while traditionalist Muslims tend to see this passage as only applying to the Prophet's time, Shi‘ites "think it is a universal precept." Ironically, then in this view, Zarqawi has adopted the exegesis of his religious nemeses. Perhaps the most influential modern recapitulation of this passage was provided by the influential Pakistani scholar and leading Islamist thinker S. Abul A' la Mawdudi (d. 1979), who argued that the sura provided the first Qur'anic prescriptions on the laws of war. Mawdudi argued"

... 'Under no circumstances should the Muslim lose sight of this aim and start taking the enemy soldiers as captives. Captives should be taken after the enemy has been completely crushed' ...

Accordingly, for soldiers of Islam, victory should be the only consideration."

My reading of Islamic teachings suggests that beheading isn't so "pagan" non-religious as you make it out to be.

Peace ...

Kamran Pasha said...

Dear Donald,

Thank you for engaging me in a genuine discussion. The Qur'anic verses you cite, and the scholarly analysis, refer to fighting in moral and just wars (the correct meaning of "jihad"), not committing acts of murder against women. "Honor killings" -- the murder of an innocent woman to avenge some sense of "personal honor" -- are not part of Islam's true teachings or Prophet Muhammad's life example.

And "beheadings" have been unfortunately performed by people of every nation in history, including Christians, as Anne Boleyn and the victims of the guillotine can testify.

In a world where swordplay was the dominant form of fighting in both Christian and Muslim worlds, all warriors sought to decapitate their adversaries on the battlefield. That verse is as non-controversial a statement as a general telling his soldier to "shoot the enemy in the head" on the battlefield, and then take any survivors as prisoners of war. The exhortations in the Qur'an to "fight to win" are no different than exhortations made by leaders of every single war in history to their troops. No one "fights to lose", nor would I imagine you suggest a "fight to lose" strategy to our brave soldiers in the Middle East.

And these Qur'anic verses are no different from the many, many verses referring to military conquest throughout the Bible. The Book of Joshua is particulalarly instructive about biblical attitudes toward warfare, where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites -- kill every man, woman and child in battle, spare no one. Compared to the kind of all-out warfare embraced in the Bible, Islam's requirements to fight within rules -- do not kill civilians, do not kill woman and children, do not kill the priests and monks of the People of the Book, do not burn trees, do not poison wells -- were hugely progressive when introduced in the Middle East by Prophet Muhammad.

The fact that there are stupid, evil men who call themselves Muslims today and act with barbarism is a tragedy. But they represent an incredibly small portion of the Muslim population, which does not conduct itself in such a fashion, because it violates the Islamic values they were raised with. Even if there were 1 million deranged and fanatical Muslims intent on murdering innocent people (and I do not believe there are anywhere near that number of crazy extremists), they would represent 0.067% of Islam's 1.5 billion believers.

Mainstream Muslims (the other 99.933% of Muslims) are your potential allies to create a world of compassion and human brotherhood. Let us work together as men and women of faith and patriotism to bring out the best in each other, rather than trying to put each other down and proclaiming ourselves superior to each other.

Your brother,
Kamran

Donald Douglas said...

Kamran:

Okay, I'm going to think about this. Keep in mind that I'm citing Timothy Furnish's scholarly essay, Beheading in the Name of Islam. So, I don't know if you want to write a whole response to that. The author notes that "The Pearl murder and video catalyzed the resurgence of this historical Islamic practice."

So again, we are at odds.

In any case, I am not a bigot, so it is troubling that your Huffington Post essay has been interpreted here in my comments as applying to me.

I take the ISLAMIST threat to American national security seroiusly, and I while Mrs. Hassan's murder may not be an "honor killing," it is deeply troubling that her husband would behead her, just as the killers of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and countless others caught in the middle of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you willing to stand with me and condemn these who claim to be Muslim and kill in the name of Allah?

repsac3 said...

while Mrs. Hassan's murder may not be an "honor killing,"

That's all I've been saying all along, Donald. Thank you for finally saying it too...

In any case, I am not a bigot, so it is troubling that your Huffington Post essay has been interpreted here in my comments as applying to me.

As the person offering that interpretation, it was based on your unwillingness to entertain the possibility that a Muslim man could violently murder his wife and have it NOT have it be a result of his being a Muslim man or an honor killing (with or without quotes.) Now that you're said this may not be an honor killing, even though he was a Muslim man who decapitated his wife, you are no longer talking like a bigot.

If you no longer believe that "Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife [was] a religious ritual killing [that] represents the worst atrocities inherent to the Muslim faith," than you're no longer talking like a bigot who believes that "a headless corpse of a poor, abused woman will always be [Islam's] legacy to humanity."

If I misunderstood your earlier words, I'm prepared to say I was mistaken about your sounding like a bigot.

Are you willing to stand with me and condemn these who claim to be Muslim and kill in the name of Allah?

Count me in too, Donald. All those who kill & claim to do so in the name of Allah deserve our strongest condemnation, whether they do so on battlefields or in their own homes.

Donald Douglas said...

Actually, Repsac3, I just read this through carefully, and what you just said is objectionable:

"As the person offering that interpretation, it was based on your unwillingness to entertain the possibility that a Muslim man could violently murder his wife and have it NOT have it be a result of his being a Muslim man or an honor killing (with or without quotes.) Now that you're said this may not be an honor killing, even though he was a Muslim man who decapitated his wife, you are no longer talking like a bigot."

In other words, those who repudiate Muslims who commit honor killings are racist bigots.

Or, if I now agree with you I'm not a bigot.

As I've said all along, Repsac3, you are an awful man, and you do not know what you are talking about. Mr. Pasha is horrified that Muslims kill in the name of God, and he regrets that they are hijacking his religion.

But no one here is saying this is not a Muslim thing. The intensity with which you are trying to show this is not an honor killing is perverted.

I still believe it's an honor killing. I'm simply entertaining Mr. Pasha's claim that it is not, and since his own personal views are at odds with expert scholarship on this, well, I'd say my position is perfectly logical.

The fact that you had to attack me as a bigot rather than argue on the merits simply does no good for anything you say, not to mention the nihilism you represent.

P.S. I'm waiting for Mr. Pasha's next response to my queries above.

repsac3 said...

You have refused to condemn Muslim beheadings so far,

Have I? Because I thought I've pretty consistently condemned all beheadings--including Aasiya Hassan's beheading--since this conversation began, so I fail to understand what it is you're talking about (& wonder whether you do, either...)

While I hesitate to bring it up, Donald, it isn't me who's changed his tune, here... Up to now, you've never entertained the possibility that this was anything but an honor killing, and the result of Mr Hassan being Muslim.

Here are a few of your earlier statements:
----------------------------------
American Power: The Beheading of Aasiya Hassan: Patriarchy-Conferred Privilege?: "Mrs. Hassan was allegedly beheaded by her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, in what appears as a classic case of Islamic ritual murder, a beheading in the fashion of Daniel Pearl's, and an 'honor killing' in the fashion of literally thousands of women around the world who have been murdered or who are now at risk of death to this Islamic barbarity"

American Power: The Beheading of Aasiya Hassan: Patriarchy-Conferred Privilege?: "Adam: Take a hike buddy ... you obviously don't know what you're taking about, and I'm not here to debate the issue. It's Islam, duh:"

American Power: Muzzammil Hassan and Islamic Primordial Violence: "This refusal to see the genuine and unique brutality in Islamic culture is found in the inherent anti-Americanism on the radical left." ... "Spencer's essay continues with an explanation of the intrinsic brutality among Muslim men, indicating that primordial violence against women is a central component to "Islamic tradition.""

American Power: Islamist Decapitation and Western Apologists: "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."

American Power: Aasiya Hassan's Beheading an "Honor Killing"?: "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." ... "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."
---------------------------------------

Still waiting for you to have Mr Pasha eating his words, and should he answer again, it will be go 'round #3. (Not that anyone's keeping count, y'understand...)

In other words, those who repudiate Muslims who commit honor killings are racist bigots.

No, but those people who refuse to accept any other possibility but honor killing, because the perpetrator is a Muslim man, probably are.

Those Muslims (& non-Muslims) who do commit honor killings (or any killings) deserve all the condemnation and repudiation any of us can offer.

Mr. Pasha is horrified that Muslims kill in the name of God, and he regrets that they are hijacking his religion.

Hopefully there will be no need for you to speak for him, as he will return and speak for himself. That said, I agree with your interpretation, and believe he will, as well.

But no one here is saying this is not a Muslim thing.

Kamran: "I am NOT saying that such horrific acts as "honor killings" are Islamic." ... ""Honor killings" -- the murder of an innocent woman to avenge some sense of "personal honor" -- are not part of Islam's true teachings or Prophet Muhammad's life example."

I think that Kamran is saying it's not a Muslim thing right there, Donald. Ymmv...

The intensity with which you are trying to show this is not an honor killing is perverted.

In comments at every post about this subject on this blog (along with posted comments at several others, including Daniel Pipe's blog) I have said that this may turn out to be an honor killing, but that no one has sufficient facts to call it one at this stage.

My position all along has been that an honor killing necessitates more than a just Muslim man, and the brutal death of one of his female family members.

At no time have I ever said or tried to show that this is not an honor killing, and I defy you to find and post a single quote in support of your allegation.

My question all along has been the speed and paucity of evidence with which some bloggers, often from the right side of the political aisle, have declared this to be an honor killing, based largely and almost exclusively on the cultural background of the assailant. That remains my question to this day.

The fact that you had to attack me as a bigot rather than argue on the merits simply does no good for anything you say, not to mention the nihilism you represent.

I have argued the merits in all I've said, including in support of my belief that you have made bigoted statements against Muslims. (Many of the statements I believe are bigoted are quoted above, with links to their original sources).

Donald Douglas said...

"Still waiting for you to have Mr Pasha eating his words ..."

Repsac3: Mr. Pasha thanked me for engaging in genuine discussion. You called me a racist. Had he done so as well, I can guarantee you he'd have eaten his words or skeedaddled out of here. As it is, I'm still waiting for him to respond to "Beheading in the Name of Islam." So far, that piece might be upturning his entire thesis at the Huffington Post.

You have never answered why Muzzammil beheaded his wife. This is a most un-American style of murder. Indeed, according to the research beheading is rooted in Muslim culture and Islamic scriptural teachings. My hunch is at trial the true motives for the murder will come out, and this is not going to be seen as simple "domestic violence." And thus, your Muslims-are-pure relativist thesis will also be overturned, with all due respect to Mr. Pasha.

The jury's still out ...

repsac3 said...

Repsac3: Mr. Pasha thanked me for engaging in genuine discussion. You called me a racist. Had he done so as well, I can guarantee you he'd have eaten his words or skeedaddled out of here.

Well, you know what I think, and why, but Mr Pasha seems to be more pleasant a man (at least to strangers) than either of us, so perhaps there may be no opportunity for anyone to reach the word ingestion stage, after all...

Perhaps that's a good thing... ...for someone, anyway...

Still, there is a part of me that hopes he does return to explain his statements about bigoted commentary and the "bigot's view of Islam," and does so in such a way that no one could possibly misunderstand his words or meaning. Alas, that may be too much to hope for...

So far, that piece might be upturning his entire thesis at the Huffington Post.

I suppose it's possible... But I don't have nearly the faith in your influence over others that you appear to... I somehow doubt that he's rethinking much of anything as a result of his time here on your blog...

You have never answered why Muzzammil beheaded his wife.

Up to now, I haven't even been asked...

I don't know. It's entirely possible that when we know all the facts, it will turn out to've been an honor killing, just as you believe. Alternatively, it could just turn out to be a crime of passion.

I think I read one report that indicated she was stabbed (perhaps several times, even) prior to the decapitation, and that the decapitation itself may've been performed post mortem.

Maybe, the guy's just crazy...

The point is, I know that I don't have enough facts to make an intelligent guess, and I submit that other than Muzzammil and perhaps the local police there, no one else does, either.

Why do you believe that you have enough facts to say with the certainty you have that this is an honor killing, and the result of his Muslim heritage?

And thus, your Muslims-are-pure relativist thesis

If you truly believe that I have any such "Muslims are pure thesis," I invite you to back your words with anything I've said that you believe indicates or supports your observation. If you do not or cannot, than I deny your silly theory on it's face.

Muslims can certainly commit murder, and can do so just as impurely as anyone else. The question is whether or not they kill because they are Muslim (any more than white men kill because they're white, or Jews kill because they're Jewish, etc...), whether this particular Muslim man did what he did as a result of his being Muslim, and finally, whether being Muslim makes a man more likely to commit such a murder.

repsac3 said...

"Repsac3: Uh, no, I'm not confused. This was undoubtedly an honor killing simply because of the method of murder, beheading, yo!

Why didn't he shoot her. Beat her with a baseball bat. Drown her. Or even stab her!

He cut her freaking head off you numbskull. What is the matter with you! No quotations marks are needed around "honor killing." It's a big duh, Einstein."

------

Confirmation of the report I alluded to last night: Slain Orchard Park woman was stabbed before beheading

If this turns out to be a stabbing death, and not "a beheading in the fashion of Daniel Pearl's," would that make your certainty that this was an honor killing and the result of Mo Hassan being a Muslim any less certain?

Or are you already less certain, as a result of your discussion with Mr. Pasha?

"and I while Mrs. Hassan's murder may not be an "honor killing,"" (Dig those quotes around "honor killing," by the way...)

Have you conceded Mr Pasha's point in this regard...

"Repsac3: I'm conceding Mr. Pasha's point, not yours. You have refused to condemn Muslim beheadings so far, in any case, so why would anyone believe you'd be willing to "stand" with people of good moral standing when you have none?" Posted by Donald Douglas to American Power at February 20, 2009 5:17 PM

...or are you only entertaining his claim, essentially humoring the guy rather than taking him down, as you claim to do with most people with whom you find yourself "at odds"?

"I still believe it's an honor killing. I'm simply entertaining Mr. Pasha's claim that it is not..."