*Trigger Warning*
This is grotesque and sad. And from everything I have read, people seem really fixated on the fact that the perpetrator is a "moderate" Muslim and this is somehow ironic, since clearly he hates women as much as his "sexist, barbaric, uncivilized" Muslim brothers.
But you know what? Let's not get distracted. It doesn't matter who killed her or what religion he is. Sexism, violence against women and hatred for women transcends all culture, religion, creed and ethnicity. Let us resist brash generalizations and focus instead on what this tells us about women and domestic violence that is frequently and unnecessarily deathly.
More on the community site from zp27.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Doesn't matter who did it-killing a woman for being a woman is a function of misogyny. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12010
For anyone who is interested, you can read a response from Imam Mohamed Hagmagid, one of the most prominent American Muslim leader: http://www.isna.net/articles/News/RESPONDING-TO-THE-KILLING-OF-AASIYA-HASSAN-AN-OPEN-LETTER-TO-THE-LEADERS-OF-AMERICAN-MUSLI.aspx
He's really wonderful. He's been a fierce advocating against domestic violence for years.
A friend of mine also noted that it is interesting that it is referred to as a beheading. If a non-Muslim had committed the same crime, it would have been called a decapitation.
Interestingly enough about the same time this happened, a man "decapitated" his son and attacked and injured his wife when she tried to stop him.
He was trying to save the boy from the anti-Christ.
You know, crazy knows no religion or ethnicity.
http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/home/headlines/39502582.html
For more on that decapitation, the father has an interview with the local TV station:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqA0J8kcvAg
Warning, that guy is frightening the way he talks about murdering his son, with no emotion at all.
It's horrifying how common this seems to be. Less than a month ago... a female Chinese graduate student at Virginia Tech was "decapitated" by her student mentor in a crowded cafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/23brfs-KILLINGATVIR_BRF.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303943.html
I think you are right about presumed culture influencing media perception of decapitation.
It's horrifying how common this seems to be. Less than a month ago... a female Chinese graduate student at Virginia Tech was "decapitated" by her student mentor in a crowded cafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/23brfs-KILLINGATVIR_BRF.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303943.html
I think you are right about presumed cultural associations influencing media perception of decapitation.
I am completely enraged and disturbed by this, since it hits close home to me (I'm a Muslim). I met Mr. Hassan years ago in Chicago, he was a very nice guy.
This has NOTHING to do with race, religion or culture, yet the Buffalo chapter of NOW has the nerve to chime in and say that maybe "honor killing" has something to do with the murder. What bullshit!
WHITE men have also been found guilty of killing their wives, yet the media doesn't talk about them being WHITE! but you all know that, since Feministing covers stories about women who have been raped, murdered, and beaten by men, no matter what background they came from.
a MURDER is a MURDER, period!
It's definitely not clear that this has nothing to do with religion.
Also, it's unclear whether you are angry about the murder or angry about reactions to the murder (i.e., calling it a possible honor killing)?
Why did you say this on your blog BROWN TRASH PUNK!
????
"This is the reason why I dislike so many White Feminists, who think they know a lot about Muslim cultures, Islam, and the Muslim world when it comes to issues for women. My advice, white feminists: keep your fucking mouth shut and sit your ass down."
Actually Sarah, this is a common and valid criticism of non-Muslim feminism by Muslim feminists. Instead of getting angry when we (non-Muslims) are told to sit down, shut up, and listen to them (Muslims), we should sit down, shut up, and listen to them. You know, kind of like we ask men to do for women.
Criticism is one thing. Saying "shut the fuck up and sit down." It a totally other thing.
You might want to do some research on white privilege, Sarah.
White privilege? What does race have to do with it? Last time I checked, Islam embraced people of all races. Perhaps you should do some research.
And, anyone who tells me to sit down and shut up is asking to be disrespected back. Sorry, but I've never told a man to 'sit down, shut up and listen' before.
So if you assume someone is white (and it's an assumption because this is the 'internets' and we can't see eachother behind the monitor) the are unwelcome and you are entitled to lash out with offensive and disrespectful BS like that? Umm...
Surely different religions have different degrees of sexism and sexist adherents and that counts for something.
Surely the *contents* of a religion, including injunctions in scriptures to discipline wives by beatings and founders marrying 9 year olds as moral examples count for something.
Of course every murder is a murder. But to make a difference we need to look at the specific causes behind each murder. In this case, I think it was a combination of the man's character AS WELL AS the teachings of Islam.
Talking about the 1st cause should not blind us to the 2nd.
I have to point out that until recently, it was quite common for arranged marriages to involve children. Usually the marriage wasn't consummated until puberty. Before the modern era, people got started early, and one could argue it was necessary then, considering the average life expectancy was about thirty to thirty five. Failing to put the events in the context of history is a disservice to everyone.
Is it acceptable now to marry a nine year old? No, at least not in my world view. The world has changed a lot in the last 1400 years, indeed it has a changed a whole lot in the last hundred.
And if we're going to speak of religious works influencing people, let's not leave out the Bible. I find it amusing that people point out all the negative stuff in the Koran, but the Bible, especially the Old Testament is just as bad.
If it's any consolation, I think all the tomes of all the Abrahamic faiths are equally steeped in misogyny and patriarchy. I agree that Christians are as bad as Muslims when it comes to shitting all over anyone God tells them that they can - women, children, gays, you name it.
Did this guy kill his wife because his Muslim faith told him it was okay? Probably not. In all likelihood, he killed his wife because he thought that, as a man, he owned her and it was his right. Did his Muslim faith give him the support he needed to maintain that patriarchal attitude? You betcha, baby.
i don't know why you make so many assumptions about what he feels his gender afforded him. when women kill their husbands or lovers, (of both genders) is it because they feel they owned them? or is because they are simply disturbed
Mohammed married Aisha at age 6 and consummated the marriage at age 9. There's a horryfying hadith narrated by Aisha that she first met Mohammed when she was playing with her friends (on a swing I think) and her mum called her over and said "this is your husband." Despite that being a different age, if we can't criticise this, what can we criticise?
And of course I wasn't suggesting leaving out criticism of other religions which do the same or worse
There is quite a bit of confusion about the ages of Aisha when things happened. According to Resa Aslan (author of "No god but God", a very good read) she was engaged to Muhummad at 6, married at 9, and the marriage was consumated when she reached puberty, which we can probably safely assume was 13 or 14.
And what does this have to do with a man killing his wife because she was leaving him? Do you think he would have not done it if Muhummad did deflower a 6 year old?
It is assumed that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was approximately 13 or 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus and was married to Joseph, based on evidence of the typical age of marriage within the time period and culture. Jewish tradition at the time betrothed girls around the age of 12 and married them within a year or so. This is the same age that many claim Mohammed and Aisha would have consummated their marriage. However, I have never, EVER heard anyone use Mary's age to discredit Christianity, even when they are full on attacking it, because people realize that the larger problems within the Christian church probably aren't related to tiny, non dogmatic details of Jesus' life.
It's fine if you want to discuss how religious interpretation is a part of violence in the world, but often when people try to do that with Islam, they often simply attack the religion, its leaders, and its followers as a whole rather than discussing trends with how the religion is interpreted and other cultural factors might lead to extremism. That's a problem.
I agree the Aisha thing was more of an aside, as an example of the general misogynistic background rather than a specific cause for this crime.
What's different with Christianity is that in Islam the prophet's life is considered exemplary -- and his relationships with his wives are often considered model examples of marriages. This isn't the case with Mary and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think I was making an indiscriminate attack -- my point was that the Islamic connection shouldn't be automatically dismissed.
You don't think the Virgin Mary is considered "exemplary" in Christianity??? Wow. Befriend more Catholics, I guess?
Not in terms of her relationship with the Holy Spirit being a literal model of how marriages should work
are you an ignorant feminist or a troll?
murdering women has something to do with the teachings of islam? i hope other posters will forgive my rambling or ad hominem attacks in this reply but i'm fuming over the ignorance over what islam teaches. islam, like all other religions have been interpreted differently by feminist muslims and patriarchal clerics, and feminists muslims do not interpret islam as advocating wife beating. i hope you point to the misogyny in christianity every time a white american man kills a woman.
it doesn't seem like you know that islam gave women the legal rights to own property, inherit property, get prenuptuals, and divorce before christianity or judaism. you can't just ignore these parts of islam and call it a "second cause" for murder. patriarchy is the first and only cause of gender based violence.
on a related note, yesterday i saw on a classmate's laptop screen that fox news's cover story was this story and featured a big picture of the couple. i don't read fox news, but many classmates do so i get to see how fox news makes cover stories out of crimes (even alleged) committed by minorities. now it makes sense why they focused on this story even though they're not the bastion of anti-violence women's rights. and yes, they had "beheading" in a font large enough to see across the room.
Good point.
Actually I nearly got into a fight with a guy in a history class, when I pointed out that if you were female in the Middle Ages that you would have wanted to live in the Middle East as opposed to western Europe because women had rights in the Middle East. Christian women in western Europe had none. They could not divorce, own property or testify in court. In fact, Muslims in the Middle Ages tolerated other faiths (just look at Moorish Spain) whereas Christians in Europe had a bad habit of burning Jews and heretics at the stake.
The entire class turned on me, with one guy who was particularly hostile, who viewed all Middle Easterners as barbaric because he had fought in Desert Storm or whatever. The teacher however, knew differently and told the whole class that I was right.
Interesting that you're saying this is an ad hominem (although technically it's not). I do however strenuously deny ignorance of Islam: the fact that there are feminist interpretations of Islam does not change the plain meaning of the Quran in 4:34.
The patriarchal clerics' interpretation is thereby well-supported, if the situation changes such that a more feminist interpretation is the mainstream one then this should have a positive influence on violence against women (but this won't change 4:34).
And whether or not Islam gave women certain rights before Christianity or Judaism (ie. without going into the details) is not relevant to how all 3 religions have misogynistic sections in their texts that can't be negated by other "positive" sections.
Robert Spencer? Is this you?
Look, without even going into the facts about Islam giving more rights to women when it came into the region than any of the other religions, what you're saying is completely offensive. And as if everything that is going on in Muslim countries today has occurred in a vacuum-- cause its *obviously*just innate in their people/their religion.
Yes, The Prophet married Aisha when she was young. But yes there is dispute as to when that was consummated. YES people of that time married younger IN GENERAL. Puberty being the generally accepted time. It is known that The Prophet waited years before consummating, why do you think that is? I'm guessing probably to honor this puberty-standard.
Is this advocating abuse of young girls today, marrying at age 9 or pedophilia? NO. No more so than anything/anyone else at that time.
So- you say that the other religions have equally misogynistic sections of their holy books. SO then why are you specifically commenting on this man's religion and its ties to the murder? Have you previously commented on all the non-Muslim men who murdered their wives? Did you quote their religious texts to prove their religion made them do it? I'm guessing not. Do you know how many white/Christian/atheist/whatever men kill women? kill their wives? And we all pass it off as "oh, that person is a sociopath" or "what a horrible psycho" or sometimes "patriarchy creates these monsters" & not once do we mention their race or religion?
what you're saying is blind and ignorant and a regurgitation of all the Islamophobia in our media. on a feminist blog. Great.
See my comments in the reply to Kat about Aisha and pedophilia.
I always find it strange when a comment is blankly called offensive (or ignorant or Islamophobic) without a specific reference or without disputing the factual accuracy -- is there a specific item I mentioned that you find offensive (or more importantly false)?
As for this being my first comment I think you're reading too much into it -- if say Fred Phelps murdered his wife and people were saying Christianity had nothing to do with it I would also disagree and comment.
All I was saying is that religious teachings (including core ones) should not be immune to criticism when they denigrate women. It's also a double standard to posit a causality between statements in the Western media and misogyny whilst denying a causality between much more specific statements within religions and misogyny. I hope I've misinterpreted and that's not what you're saying because from my perspective that's problematic on a feminist blog.
I think we'd both agree that Fred Phelps practices a very specific offshoot of Christianity that is not considered mainstream. I'm pretty sure headlines would involve "Westboro Babtist" leader and not "Christian leader" So if you wanted to say it was this man's fucked up version of Islam, fine. But you didnt.
No I'm not saying religions should be free from criticism. But its offensive when its one specific religion thats constantly being misrepresented, and when its your first comment about a murder. There arent any details. No one saying Islam told him to do it. Why is this the automatic first reaction when we see a brown face with a Muslim name?
I'm not saying Islam shouldnt have been mentioned in the *article*- I mean he founded an Islamic TV Station. But it shouldnt automatically be on the vein of "Islam made him do it."
Believe me, I know a shit ton of issues with current Arab or Muslim culture, I lived in Egypt. And in the right context I would be glad to discuss the sexism/misogyny. But I call your bluff when you say you would say this about any other culture/religion. When that's your immediate thought after hearing this, without any scary patriarchal Muslim quotes from the guy, or anything, that's a problem.
Ah, here we go, people who think Islam contains justifications for honor killings are not Real MuslimsTM. I'll be the first to admit that mainstream Christianity has deviated greatly from the way the life of Jesus is portrayed in the gospels (he and his apostles were supposedly running a freaking commune, for FSM's sake, and were always going on and on about giving all your money to the poor; try telling this to modern day Bible belt inhabitants), or even from Paul's version. A lot of Christians today prefer to cherry-pick the stuff that advocates or justifies oppression and exploitation (which, of course, is not impossible to do given the shit with which the Bible overflows). But we can either afford them the courtesy of identifying them by their preferred label, or we can get all technical about it (which would be pretty hard given the fact that scriptures tend to be self-contradictory and confusing so that it's impossible to establish a clear standard). I don't have a problem identifying anyone who calls themselves a Christian as such, including Fred Phelps or liberal Christians. I don't have a problem identifying anyone who calls themselves a Muslim as such, either.
I would also like to ask you how come you're the one who gets to decide which version of Islam is fucked up and which isn't. When I read verses like "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush", I'm sort of inclined to think it talks about killing non-Muslims for being non-Muslims, which is pretty fucked up coming from a supposedly loving and merciful omnipotent being. Of course, perhaps it's my ignorance and islamophobia talking, and this verse is some sort of secret Muslim code for "let's foster mutual respect and diversity". But then perhaps you could enlighten us in the way of this secret Muslim code, along with evidence that it actually exists and is the only right way to interpret the Quran? I, for one, would be willing to listen.
I am also puzzled as to why ethnicity even enters the discussion here. Before throwing around allegations of racism, perhaps you could point to someone who suggests that his brown face had anything to do with him killing his wife. Islam is not a race, and trying to equate criticism of it with racism is too easy a cop-out.
Sigh. Okay. I am definitely not getting into a full-on Islamic text debate because no one has time for that but can I just point out that people who dont study the Quran always bring up that line. Well guess what-- its completely taken out of context and it doesnt mean slay all the non-Muslims. At this time, The Prophet entered into a peace treaty with polytheists in the region, and that quote is directed at the section of the polytheists who broke that contract and started uprisings against the Muslims. Tribes that started attacking them. So that's what the verse is directed at.
And again, this has *what* to do with the murder story?
I'm sorry I brought up the race thing, and please note I did not call ANYONE a racist. But racism and Islamophobia are closely linked and frequently used together in prejudice in our media, etc, so its not completely out of place.
Well, from the context (which I did read, BTW) it definitely seems that he's saying that the contract with the faithful polytheists should be carried out till the end of the term. After that, all polytheists are up for grabs in terms of killing and imprisonment, even the ones who honored the contract, after the sacred months have passed. The only way for them to be spared is to start praying regularly (presumably, not to their pagan gods). This is entirely consistent with intolerance of non-Muslims to which I alluded earlier.
What does it have to do with the murder? Nothing really. It has more to do with the fact that you see yourself fit to judge whose version of Islam is fucked up and whose isn't, like I said before.
you see yourself fit to judge whose version of Islam is fucked up and whose isn't
you're very focused on my 'fucked up' comment when for me it was an aside. its not a blanket statement that I see myself fit to judge versions of Islam. But yes when applied to this scenario, beheading anyone is fucked up in my opinion and in the vast majority of people's interpretations of Islam. where its completely sinful to kill innocents. Clearly you and I are not going to agree, but if it comes out that this guy did it in the name of Islam, I'm standing by my "fucked up" comment.
I feel like I am derailing the conversation by having these arguments but oh well.
And for the record, if this were really supposed to be an honest discussion about Islam today and misogyny and feminism and sexism, I'd agree there's a shitload to be worked on. But I'm pretty sure the solution isnt going to come from nonMuslim Westerners taking quotes out of context from a book they've never read and making snide remarks about a "sort of secret Muslim code for 'let's foster mutual respect and diversity'" Meh.
Ok, the Fred Phelps thing was an exaggeration to get my point across. For a more realistic example: there are tens of millions of evangelical Christians in the US -- if one of them killed someone for being LGBT I would definitely say the teachings of Christianity are a relevant topic of discussion (although as in this case it's not clear to what extent the beliefs might have influenced the person).
In fact in this example I think the link is much more firm -- homophobia being very closely tied to religious teachings
your post didn't contain any facts. you pointed out some the patriarchal interpretations of islam without pointing out alternatives. patriarchal interpretations may be mainstream but that doesn't mean feminist interpretations are any less valid. and you chose to point out the negative things of islam without pointing out the positives, and that is either ignorant, or racist, or both.
and while it's not wrong to point out that many muslims interpret islam with misogyny, there is no reason to point to islam as the secondary cause for murder as there is no reason to point to christianity when other american men murder women. you shouldn't blame judaism for what the israelis are doing to palestinians.
i like how you dismissed that islam gave women legal rights as something that doesn't matter because the quran contains misogynistic verses. giving women legal rights is not a light progress, compared to other religions that basically considered women publicly non existent.
The "fact" I cited was the plain meaning of the admonition in 4:34. And I certainly would say that a feminist interpretation of that verse is less valid. If someone today said it was ok to beat women I don't think a single commenter would think that a feminist interpretation of that statement that says that this person was actually not being misogynistic is valid.
My point about the irrelevance of Islam granting any specific legal rights was this: suppose a religion has a good teaching A and a bad teaching B. The presence of A does not ameliorate the bad teaching B -- because B is there it's likely to influence some to do bad (some of those people will also ignore A). So A does NOT outweigh B -- a more ethical version of the religion would be one with A and not B.
the verse about beating your wife is interpreted to be "striking" your wife, which is arabic colloquial for sex. so some people think the verse advises lovemaking rather than beating. i don't think you've really discussed with muslim feminists or alternative interpreters what islam is about. mainstream islam also seems to condemn homosexuality but some people think it condemns male-on-male rape in the story of sodom and gomorrah, rather than homosexual love. most people on this blog who are going off criticizing islam seems to not have looked at the religion from within.
and if the good doesn't ameliorate the bad, then the bad doesn't negate the good. you still haven't answered my questions about why we don't point to the teachings of christianity every time a christian man commits gender based violence. anyone who wants to be misogynistic can certain find his/her own reasons within christianity for doing so, but that doesn't make christianity (or islam) inherently misogynistic religions.
I was going to make a comment about looking at the causes, but you beat me to the punch. Of course, it's too early to say what exactly they were in this case, but it freaking amazes me how any criticism of Islam or practices that find justification in Islam according to the Muslims who commit them (or are they not Real MuslimsTM?) is off limits around here. Are we supposed to close our eyes to reality and believe that Irshad Manji is a good example of what most Muslims are like? The reasons Muslims like her exist (and, more importantly, are allowed to exist in Canada) are the product of progressive social attitudes and secularization which arose in spite of conservative religions, certainly not because of them.
I hear ya, But the point is, this topic wasn't "Name All The Things Wrong With Islam Today"...it was a story of a murder. And everyone's immediate thoughts were to bring up things like the Prophet marrying a young girl? When I've seen nothing in the news coverage about this being related to religion? And tons of non-Muslim men kill their wives too? You don't really see how thats problematic? Not even a little bit?
Actually, this particular opening post by Samhita was concentrating more on the reaction to the murder by people who find it ironic that he committed such a stereotypical act of murder while running a station dedicated to combating stereotypes, and that it doesn't matter who did it. Samhita's post was not itself a story of murder.
Some of us disagree with the sentiment that it doesn't matter who did it because we think it's important to identify the possible causes of violence or figure out how the usual deterrents against it were overridden. Hence, the discussion of Islam is relevant since some Muslims believe it justifies honor killings. I know from experience that it's possible to construct a mental frame that separates a religious leader from the religion in which he is a key figure and maybe blame his unseemly behavior on the customs of the time, or conclude that just because he had faults, the religion need not be false. I used to do it myself when I was a Mormon with Joseph Smith who used outright coercion to make women marry him (including a 14-year old who was basically forced into it by her father; a large segment of Mormon apologetics today focuses on denying that Smith had intercourse with her, even though they have to rely on pretty heavy mind-twisting to do that). But to those people who are of the opinion that Islam is a man-made religion, it seems obvious that the Quran was entirely composed by Muhammad, and his own views and behavior when it came to marriage can provide evidence for favoring a certain interpretation of the Quran.
I agree that it would be premature to conclude that Islam had anything to do with the murder based on the information we have about the murder. However, it's not like we started out discussing the murder itself, and then people jumped out of nowhere bringing up Muhammad and pedophilia. fr1kle was simply debating the idea that we should simply attribute the murder to some generic misogyny instead of also looking into other possible contributing factors, such as association with a religion that has a history of systematically oppressing women (the fact that initially it was oppressing women less than Christianity is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam advocates oppression of women, or can be interpreted to do so).
To be fair, this site has no problem calling out individuals who identify as being a part of other religions.
These individuals' religion is brought up in part because of how we would have heard from them before. The man is the founder of an Islamic TV station, it's not unreasonable to mention that fact, especially if you are looking at the irony of his intentions in his station and his own actions.
BTW, I've seen the media mention when criminals are Christian, ESPECIALLY if the accused identifies heavily with one religion or another -- of course they're going to jump on that as they love to do.
Ultimately religious documents are products of the culture they were created in. Maybe I can take this view because I only see them as being written by men, but I think just about every religion has elements of misogyny since that was the predominant view of those societies.
The monotheistic religions all have elements of sexism, although interpretations of those original documents vary immensely in the current time. There are extremist Christians who are incredibly misogynist (http://jesus-is-savior.com/Womens%20Page/womens_page.htm is a good example), and there are Muslim interpretations of the Koran that are similarly sexist. Extremist Christianity and Islam aren't all that different. People seem to forget they're sibling religions.
Wow. Nice link. I especially like the page on why I shouldn't wear pants. *rolls eyes*
"...there are godly men who are trying to maintain clean minds, and you're helping to hurt them spiritually. God will hold every woman accountable for EVERY lust she intentionally caused in men by her immodest apparel."
I'm not sure what's more disturbing: the stuff about how women should behave, or the part about how medical treatment for oh, that minor problem called CANCER, should be eschewed for apricot seeds and B vitamins.
I suppose they not only want women to be submissive and modest, they want them to be dead, too.
I grant that that there is an overwhelming and unfair caricature of Muslims embedded in our culture that does us little good to perpetuate. I also grant that bringing up violent and misogynistic passages from the Koran isn't totally relevant because the majority of Muslims don't resonate with those literal interpretation and instead take more out of teachings on compassion and reason.
However, religion is not irrelevant. I think that we make a huge error when we privilege religion and make it an exception in our cultural critiques. Religion effects people. It's an extremely effective way of preserving irrational and oppressive ideas and practices.
I agree that religion is totally open to interpretation and it's also greatly influenced by patriarchal norms. I, of course believe that the whole reason that religion is so malleable to human ideas is that it is totally a product created by humans. This precisely why it should enjoy no immunity from critique. Some religious beliefs are just backward and destructive. Like the idea that women should be subservient to men. Or that the name you call your god is a moral issue. Or that sex for fun is inherently bad.
Look, when we make interpretations of religious texts we're appealing to higher theories of justice and morality. Feminism generally aligns itself with progressive and logical arguments and theories. And progressives are almost always pushing against stubborn, irrational beliefs rooted in faith. Yes, there are many progressives who are religious. But they're the one's developing new interpretations that appeal to rational theories!
Can we please just cut to the chase? Can we just admit religion is becoming obsolete?
I know my comment is going to hail a sh*tstorm, but I get kind of livid at the suggestion that these things have nothing to do with religion, and therefore, there's this unspoken rule that we can't question the value of some of the teachings of Islam.
For the purpose a less volatile example of Christianity. A lot of the posts on this site deal with puritanical "abstinence only" policies and social norms which disproportionately hurt women. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the advocates of said, feminist-lamented policies are not ignorant hicks that know no better, nor are they just women haters who want to oppressive for the sake of oppressing. They are smart, articulate people appealing to a religious conception of sex. Sex must be ordained by God (usually through heterosexual marriage) for it to be permissible. Sex outside this norm is wrong,it's even wrong to "facilitate it" by offering contraception.
Me, I take the secular humanist camp. No God, sex belongs to humans. It's good when it feels good, solidifies bonds, makes families, is comforting and fun. It's bad when it's forced or used to abuse. The justification for rape, and coercion being bad does not come from a an insult to a sky fairy-- it's bad because it hurts us. Let's keep this in the now.
Amen, Salad.
Religion is not, to excuse the expression, a Sacred Cow.
Yes, we need to examine our own biases (and there definitely seems to be a media bias in this and that shouldn't be ignored), and those impressed upon us by our society, when we analyze it. But to say outright religion has nothing to do with these kind of things is premature. I also wouldn't say it has everything to do with it. More likely, it's a contributor to the problem.
That said, this case sounds very much like many other cases where the woman is planning to leave or divorce her (allegedly abusive, noting that the police had been called several times) husband and the outcome turns deadly.
In this sense, it is a feminist issue.
It's a widespread occurrence, sadly. It's not at all unusual to see news of women murdered at the hands of their husbands, particularly if they were trying to get out of the relationship.
And it's not an event solely relegated to any one race, religion, ethnicity, or creed.
But we need not ignore those things, either.
many of those who criticize abstinence only policies don't say things like "christianity must have something to do with oppressing women's sexuality," which some posters here are saying about islam. some christians/muslims who interpret their religion through patriarchy will use their religions to oppress. that doesn't make the religions inherently misogynistic.
and we don't point to christianity for all the domestic violence cases in america, so it's definitely racist for feminists to blame islam for this one. and this is just a guess, but i don't think any of the ignorant posters on this topic has ever lived in a muslim country, met muslim feminists, or had thoughtful theological/cultural discussions.
We probably should critically examine the role of Christianity in attitudes about sexual morality and domestic violence. It does have a role.
Yes, racism and islamophobia are intertwined. But that's no reason to exempt islam from the discussion.
Sure there are Muslim Feminists. But I'll wager that their interpretation of Islam isn't mainstream Islam. Same thing with Feminist Christians.
From my experience, being a Feminist in and Abrahamic religion means taking a minority stance and doing a lot of hand waving about misogynistic religious teachings. It often means going against canonized scholars of that religion. Oh, you think you know better than Calvin (for Christians)? That's nice, but you've got an uphill battle.
I'm not saying one can't. One certainly can. Religion is no different than any other human cultural creation, we essentially make it up as we go. But some ways of thinking about things are more conducive to progress than others.
We need to start feeling more comfortable assessing and criticizing the effect of religion on society. If a religious belief is leading to real, immediate, physical harm (such as the emphasis on abstinence referenced above), we have to be able to reject it.
In this case, the fact that the murderer is religious is relevant. I would feel the same way were he Christian or Jewish. Fact is, a man who perpetuates violence against women within a belief system that tells him his wife is his subordinate, his property, etc. is different and brings up different societal concerns than one who perpetuates violence just because he's a sociopath.
Nowhere in that CNN article does it speculate on why he murdered his wife. I don't know how the conclusion was reached that "he killed her for being a woman" or that his religion had anything to do with it.
It's a tragedy to be sure, but I'm not sure how deep the feminist analysis goes into this one.
I'm not surprised, nor particularly offended by the media coverage of this story (apart from the use of the word beheading in place of decapitation).
Simply, there is a glaring irony to this story that is just too obvious for the news media to ignore. The founder of a TV station specifically aimed at refuting damaging Muslim stereotypes--misogyny, violence, and yes, the barbaric use of decapitation just to name a few--ends up perpetuating them instead with his heinous actions.
So it's not so much that he's just a Muslim, but that he's a Muslim with the track record of stereotype-defying that he has.
This one sounds depressingly like 99.9% of the man-murdering-wife-who-is-leaving-him stories in the news in North America. So, this thread is about religious differences?
Back to the murder: it was just like the others, another example of male entitlement and control over a woman that ultimately ends in murder. I'd be interested in more details about her life, and her perspective. I'd want to know about past police involvement and what they did to help her. I'd want to know why it got this far.
I remember my ex-husband and his all-white conservative male friends passing around a picture they thought was hilarious and he made sure to give me a copy - it was called The Perfect Woman. It was a drawing of a naked woman with the head cut off.
Sort of looks like beheading women is a North American male fantasy too.
Yeah. I wrote a community post about this yesterday morning that hasn't gone up yet.
I basically said that I know how people will react - because this guy is Muslim the assumption is automatically that it has a cultural basis. And I grew up in Buffalo, I know the area - there are parts of town they are very much not open minded about other cultures and religions, and those are the places that will really assume this.
I also noticed that it has taken some time for this story to get attention, but I completely understand because the murder happened the same day as the plane crash. *sigh* Not a good week for my birthplace.
Also - he killed her and she's a woman - but no one has said that he killed her because she's a woman. There's a difference.
I think that in this back-and-forth on the subject of religion, we may be forgetting a central truth.
An abuser will justify his actions using the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, tradition, privilege, his victim's actions, porn, Star Wars, or anything else he damn well pleases.
He'll use whatever pathetic cover he can hide behind to justify taking his own weakness out on a victim who can't fight back. That's not necessarily the fault of the things he uses as cover (though some could certainly do more, like that imam, to give such asshats less cover). Blame ABUSERS for abuse.
EXACTLY! thank you.
why do the comments on any post somehow relating to Muslim women, the middle east, or south asia always end up being a discussion of whether or not Islam is evil, suborns pedophillia, or encourages men to murder their wives.
its islamphobic and frankly one of the reasons many Muslim feminists are shut out of mainstream feminist work, dialouges, discussions. its also detracts from the story here- being that a woman was mudered- and intimate partner violence is a problem in the US. No matter who commits it.
Doesn't matter who did it-killing a woman for being a woman is a function of misogyny.
Let's not split words. It's a hate crime.
Ahhh.
I agree the coverage of and response to this has been really fracked up, but I also question the language of "violence against women and hatred for women transcending all culture." I think broad, universalizing statements about a singular global patriarchy that transcends societies and cultures (the kind of logic Chandra Mohanty critiques in "Under Western Eyes") are just as problematic as statements that essentialize a single culture as somehow being inherently misogynistic (what Uma Narayan calls the "package picture of cultures." I feel like in a way it's the same kind of logic that essentializes cultures being applied more broadly to patriarchy, and I think it's also the kind of logic that can lead to feminists from the so-called 1st world setting an agenda that might discount the priorities of some women activists from the global South as somehow not feminist, for instance by deciding that genital cutting is a more "feminist" issue than clean water or healthcare.
I think patriarchy is created and perpetuated through multiple and intersecting structures, institutions, social systems, cultural practices, etc. both within and across/between different cultures and locations, and I think it's important to say that Muzzammil Hassan is shaped by the multiple and intersecting patriarchal structures, institutions and cultural practices in which he's embedded.
I agree the coverage of and response to this has been really fracked up, but I also question the language of "violence against women and hatred for women transcending all culture." I think broad, universalizing statements about a singular global patriarchy that transcends societies and cultures (the kind of logic Chandra Mohanty critiques in "Under Western Eyes") are just as problematic as statements that essentialize a single culture as somehow being inherently misogynistic (what Uma Narayan calls the "package picture of cultures." I feel like in a way it's the same kind of logic that essentializes cultures being applied more broadly to patriarchy, and I think it's also the kind of logic that can lead to feminists from the so-called 1st world setting an agenda that might discount the priorities of some women activists from the global South as somehow not feminist, for instance by deciding that genital cutting is a more "feminist" issue than clean water or healthcare.
I think patriarchy is created and perpetuated through multiple and intersecting structures, institutions, social systems, cultural practices, etc. both within and across/between different cultures and locations, and I think it's important to say that Muzzammil Hassan is shaped by the multiple and intersecting patriarchal structures, institutions and cultural practices in which he's embedded.
I would not disagree with you Tim. I am schooled in transnational feminist theory, but I write for a very mainstream blog. My words are interpreted as homogenizing because that is the narratives we have to draw from. I can't write a thesis for every post I write so I instead choose one angle. My homogenizing is strategic in the sense that I am trying to highlight the racist coverage and that women are beaten and killed by their intimate partners in multiple cultures.
it sucks the way that many posters are responding to this...blaming islam, making generalizations about muslim populations, and assuming that muslim communities aren't addressing issues like dv in our own ways.
this behavior from the 'mainstream' (read: white, middle class, hetero, christian, able-bodied people etc) is exactly what causes marginalized groups to stay quiet about the issues that they are facing WITHIN their communities.
i am muslim and pakistani and i worked for a dv organization that are specifically for south asian women. i did community outreach in that organization and oh. my. god. it was SO freaking hard to get anybody to talk about it! even if they weren't experiencing violence themselves!
the reasons why? because south asian and muslim people are so scrutinized anyways...everything we do is considered a terrorist action. so when something that is ACTUALLY horrible like domestic violence is occuring, the first thing that is done is busting out the PR moves, like not recognizing that it is actually happening.
i really wish white, liberal feminists would recognize that their muslim-bashing doesn't help anyone...you might think that you are doing something good by pointing out the fucked up parts of islam...but sorry, muslim women are not so stupid that we can't do that ourselves. and we ARE doing it. and we ARE making strides. and when we are bashed by the mainstream, it makes it harder for our voices to be heard within our communities.
I am, by no means, an expert on Islam. But from what I've read of the Koran, the religion itself is fairly reasonable. It attempts to give women a better position then the one their culture gives them. In my opinion, a great deal that the media portrays as 'Islamic' and 'Muslim' is the very same cultural attitudes that the religion was a response. Just because someone claims they have religious reasons, doesn't mean their actions are supported by their religion.
What's ironic about this story is that the murderer apparently devoted his career to building the gap between the Muslim community and the American community at large, i.e. devoted his career to making Muslim Americans look good and helping them fit in. Of course his actions shouldn't characterize Muslims in general, men in general, straight people in general, or any other group to which he belongs, unless there's a cold-blooded murderer club out there. He can represent them anytime.