Samhita and zp27 on the community blog have mentioned this, but I really appreciated what Hussein Rashid had to say at Religion Dispatches,
Last week, Muzzammil Hassan apparently beheaded his wife, Aasiya Zubair. Although the reasons for this heinous act currently remain unclear, there was a history of domestic violence.God rest her soul.
Mr. Hassan was co-founder, with his wife, of Bridges TV, a station dedicated to improving the image of Muslims in the US. His work was well-known and admired, and the case has shocked American Muslims. Although their private life was private, it was assumed that a couple who lived and worked together for eight years did not have more than average amount of spousal disagreement.
Fatemeh at Muslimah Media Watch has more links related to Aasiya Hassan's murder, but because more details have yet to emerge, Fatemeh is holding off on weighing in. (It's not clear that this was an honor killing, although some media outlets have defined it that way.) Here, I'll defer to Hussein Rashid again, who continues,
I cannot fathom the anger, the rage that would result in a beheading. According to my TV, crimes of passion tend to be the most violent, but a beheading is just such a foreign concept, in any context, that it is inconceivable. Yet it happened. I believed that it would be described as an expression of innate Muslim values, as though only Muslims are capable of such a crime. Although there is no monopoly on violence, there is a discourse that projects violence as being only a Muslim trait. A typical Orientalist fantasy that holds that the "Other" is inherently violent no matter what the reality may be. Thankfully, aside from some of the fringe sites, the media has been responsible in reporting this as a case of domestic violence.Horrible things are done to women every day, every minute, everywhere, by all kinds of people. It's not as though we are not aware of it violence against women in the Muslim community. We are and we are trying to do something about it. But a moment like this shows how immediate the need is. The reality is that every community suffers from forms of domestic violence. It's not about religion; it's about power and control. We don't know why Aasiya Zubair was slaughtered. We do know that in difficult economic times, men tend to act out more, in an attempt to exercise control. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence issues, and this case is one of a larger pattern, that has nothing to do with religion.
Read the rest here.
Also, you can join the Facebook group In Memory of Aasiya Zubair: A Pledge to End Domestic Violence.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Aasiya Zubair Hassan.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12022
Mr. Hassan was co-founder, with his wife, of Bridges TV, a station dedicated to improving the image of Muslims in the US.
I dunno... maybe I'm being overly sensitive here, but is anyone else a little bothered by the way this is phrased? Here we have a dude who murdered his wife, in an article about the murder of his wife, and yet HE is the one who gets first billing in a note about something THEY both did together.
Like I said, I dunno. I could be getting worked up over nothing. Been stressed out lately. Anyway, it bugged me a little :-P
It really irritates me how much attention and spin that this man's religion is getting.
From what I have seen on the Main Stream Media, his religion is getting allot of attention because of the TV station that they created. A TV station that centered around their religion.
When a criminal is deeply involved in religion that religion is always brought to the light when discussing them. Catholic priests involved in molestation ALWAYS invoke conversation regarding Catholic values or the religion and practices.
When something is contradictory or ironic, as it is in this case, of COURSE that's going to get attention. The station was dedicated to improving an image in the US and nothing can do more harm to your OWN image than murder.
This is devastating and appalling and I wish feminists would be more upset for the woman than this horrible man. I don't want to read about what a "nice guy" he "is" or his good work. That shouldn't be related here.
Instead of papering the internet about what was or was not a motivation behind her murder (which this article suggests no one actually knows yet) why don't we wait and see? Obviously the actions of one individual should not reflect upon an entire culture or religion but I am sad that the focus is on this vile man and not on the crime.
"This is devastating and appalling and I wish feminists would be more upset for the woman than this horrible man."
I think it goes without saying that everyone is horrified that a woman was murdered. Worse still, she was murdered by her husband and in a gruesome manner after suffering abuse at his hands for some time (at least according to the newest reports). I don't think every single comment needs to be prefaced with a statement of horror because EVERYONE feels that way.
And it's not the man people are upset for when it comes to the outrage over media coverage, it's the characterization of his acts as somehow tied to his religious despite the fact that abusers of every race, religion, and economic status murder their partners. It's not a defense of this man (he's done the indefensible, there are no words horrible enough to describe him), but a defense of other practitioners of the religion who do not deserve to be lumped into the same category as this scumbag. There are two separate incidences of outrage here. The first is that a woman was murdered by her husband and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wasn't outraged by that. The second is what some people see as defamation of Muslims in the coverage of this story. That is the part that's controversial, so of course more people are going to be discussing it. It doesn't mean that we all aren't disgusted by the murder.
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.
Nobody talks about "white male rage" when white men beat, rape, and kill their wives, lovers, and/or daughters.
As a Muslim, I've NEVER even heard of the term "honor killing" until white feminists and Western politicans started throwing around the term a few years ago. There is no such thing as a honor killing.
Like I said before, THIS WAS A MURDER, PERIOD! THIS WAS ABOUT AN ESTRANGED MAN WHO KILLED HIS WIFE.
Hey, I saw your comment in the other thread too, and I just wanted to chime in -- I don't think anyone (or at least most people here) disagree with you, I think the point of both of these posts is basically what you said. iirc, you were pissed off about some things the regional NOW said about it, and from what I saw I'm probably with you on that (and I personally think that NOW really does appear to have a "talk first, think later" policy on stuff like this sometimes...), but you should know that Feministing != NOW, even though in theory we at least ought to have similar goals.
Nobody talks about "white male rage" when white men beat, rape, and kill their wives, lovers, and/or daughters.
Perhaps it's because there is no single ideology to which all white males adhere (at least not consciously, that's for sure)? This is not about race or ethnicity, so stop trying to make it look that way.
I agree this was a murder. But why murder, period? Are all murders motivated and affected by the same things?
and what makes you think all muslim men adhere to one single ideology? they may all believe in islam but have different interpretations of it. the fact that you see how white presumably christian men are different from each other but you don't see the complexity among muslims speaks to the frustrations other feminists, especially minority feminists are having with this discussion.
I don't see white men as presumably Christian. I am acquainted with plenty of non-Christian white men. Of course, I realize there are different interpretations of Islam, and I don't see Muslim men as homogeneous. But any two Muslim men would at least share the belief in god, which is an ideological issue, whereas there is no guarantee that any two white men are going to share any common beliefs at all. In any case, my point was that it makes a lot more sense to look for motivations or influences in ideology than in race. Brown Trash Punk keeps trying to confuse the two. They are not the same.
You do NOT know that this man's religious beliefs didn't play a role in the murder. You are just as extremist as people who imply that beheading is typical muslim behavior. Your extremism is assuming there are no "honor killings" when clearly there are. Courts in Islamic countries and muslim leaders have condoned such killings. I don't know of any Christian leaders condoning the murder of spouses (or rape of perpetrator's sister).
any person's cultural, religious, ethnic beliefs can play a role in their actions. whether a person watches porn or plays violent video games can play a role in their violent actions. but why are these cultural and ethnic things coming up only in this murder case? why not for every other murder case?
you pointed out that some courts have condoned killings and/or rapes of women in some muslim countries. anecdotally, and from some WS class readings, christian priests, preachers and even law enforcement officers condone domestic violence by telling the woman to behave differently and not to make her husband angry. even recently, people have commented on how rihanna might have deserved the beating from chris brown because of the way she was acting or because it wasn't that bad.
and while there are judges in muslim countries who condone gender-based violence, there are also many muslim feminists who demonstrate against it and call it un-islamic. your monolithic criticism of islam itself is what BROWN TRASH PUNK or any other less ignorant feminist has a problem with.
btw, i grew up in a muslim majority country and i didn't hear the term "honor killing" before i came to america.
I'd like to echo the point someone else made in the other thread about this on feministing that it seems awfully striking to me that this is being framed as a "beheading," not a "decapitation." I think that is both a mirror and a cause of people taking this as somehow a "foreign" event, attached to the very images of Islam that both the wife and the husband reportedly rejected. Ultimately, I think people are just trying to make sense of a completely horrifying and senseless act, and so they're falling back on racist narratives for it, because they don't want to own up to the gruesome fact that sometimes abusive husbands murder their wives, especially when they try to leave, in places like suburban Buffalo NY.
It's a complex, racist version of "Yeah, but it could never happen to me."
I can definitely appreciate the reflection of Hussein Rashid on his initial reactions to the murder, and how he realized that he was more concerned with people's perceptions and reactions and how they may adversely affect Muslims than the victim and her children, and how he's trying to change that now. But the last statement is undermined by the fact that he titled his piece Domestic Violence Has Nothing To Do With Religion, which suggests that he's primarily concerned with exculpating Islam (and religion in general) from any ties with domestic violence.
Aasiya Zubair has been both been exploited by sensationalist news sources looking for a scapegoat, and shoved aside by Muslims whose primary concern is defending their religion. It's nice that Mr. Rashid is so vocal against domestic violence, but why then the need to point out it has nothing to do with religion, including this particular case (right after he admits to not knowing why she was slaughtered)? If it really doesn't, then public scrutiny couldn't hurt. But it sounds like to me like a preemptive call to disregard any relationship between domestic violence and religion. It's as if Rashid expects us to make up our minds now, before we know all the details, and should Hassan later cite religion as a motivation for or an influence on the murder, we are to disregard it. Frankly, Rashid's trying to frame the public perception as much as the fringe sites he's decrying.
I should have probably said "those Muslims whose primary concern is defending their religion", since I don't mean to imply it's all Muslims' primary concern.
if the perpetrator does cite islam as the reason for committing this act then he is not taking responsibility for his actions. perpetrators will of course cite ANYTHING that they can (alcohol, a difficult childhood, their victims' behavior, porn, video games blah blah blah you get the point) for committing whatever violent act they committed. but at the end of the day, they are to be held accountable.
also someone up above said that they are sick of hearing abotu what great things this dude did etc. i agree, i think it is not the time or the place to recognize his achievements. but i do believe it serves a purpose to show that ANYONE, even people who do a whole lot for a marginalized community, can commit horrible acts of violence. i know people IN the anti-violence community who are abusers themselves. its just a wake-up call that no one is immune and that it is not just evil, crazy people who are doing these things.
this leads to my next point. it is up to the muslim community (of which i am a part, so i don't feel problematic in making suggestions for action) to recognize that domestic violence does indeed exist in our communities, just as it does in ANY community. we face additional difficulties in addressing dv because lots of ignorant folks assume that our religion CONDONES violence against women and that brown men are inherently violent and oppressive. however, that does not mean that we can't address this issue within our own mosques and community centers. we need to establish systems of internal accountability so that we can address perpetrators (even if they are influential members of the community) OURSELVES, before it gets to the point that this horrifying case did.
"we face additional difficulties in addressing dv because lots of ignorant folks assume that our religion CONDONES violence against women and that brown men are inherently violent and oppressive. however, that does not mean that we can't address this issue within our own mosques and community centers."
yes i agree. thanks for making the point.
if the perpetrator does cite islam as the reason for committing this act then he is not taking responsibility for his actions. perpetrators will of course cite ANYTHING that they can (alcohol, a difficult childhood, their victims' behavior, porn, video games blah blah blah you get the point) for committing whatever violent act they committed.
It's not that I'm suggesting that his religious beliefs are the sole reason he did it, or are even in any way involved at all (I simply don't know, but I'm open to different explanations unlike Rashid who has already decided that it couldn't have anything to do with religion).
There is also research that shows that men abused as children are more likely to violently victimize others. It's not just a cop-out used by criminals to get a lighter sentence, it's reality.
but at the end of the day, they are to be held accountable.
Why are you accepting this as an axiom? What does it mean to be held accountable? I agree that Hassan needs to be prevented from being a threat to others, but it's not like punishing him for the sake of punishment will make domestic violence go away or even decrease, let alone bring his victim back. Studying the reasons why he did it might, on the other hand.
Of course, I agree that domestic violence happens in all communities. But to suggest that there are always the same contributing factors, or that something cannot possibly be a contributing factor (without any evidence, like Rashid does) just because there is violence perpetrated by people who could not have been exposed to this particular factor is a fallacy. Which is what my issue is with his article.
What's the difference between a beheading and a decapitation, anyway?
Cultural baggage.
The presence of decapitation in this crime must be indicative of at least some degree of mental illness (how could anyone in their right mind commit such an act?). How do we know that the voices in his head didn't twist some extremist influences into a particular action? Any set of beliefs or traditions stored in an individual's brain is subject to misinterpretation when exposed to the demons of brain chemical malfunction. Pointing out that the beliefs in this case happen to come from a particular religion is not inappropriate (though singling out this religion as more or less destructive than others is not constructive).
The religion itself is not the cause, but certain characteristics of religions may influence how the act manifests itself. For instance, consider James Kopp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
He was a member of the Society of Saint Pius X (which rejects much of Vatican II). Now, most of its members don't go around murdering abortion providers, but he thought he was performing a righteous act in the name of his religion. When these cases come up, the conversation will inevitably turn to Catholic bashing (I've seen it on this very forum). I don't have a personal interest in Catholicism, but I know some very nice, liberal Catholics. I'd wager that anyone posting here who partakes in religious customs is most likely not a destructive extremist.
As others have posted, I too am an equal opportunity critic of all religions. I've read about enough horrific actions committed under the name of Christianity (especially in the area of domestic violence) to think that any system of belief (religious or cultural) is not beyond examination.
I have to say I agree with NOW in its outrage on the second degree murder charges. How is decapitation NOT premeditated or willful?
Actually mental illness is not a prerequisite for committing particularly horrific crimes. Also in this case of a beheading we use Islam. Why? Because we want an answer to a crime that we cannot comprehend.
Hussein Rashid's comments strike me as very disingenuous. For example: " but a beheading is just such a foreign concept, in any context,"
The last time I checked decapitation is a legally sanctioned and in-practice form of public punishment in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam and most influential Islamic nation to this day. Moreover terrorists professing Islamic motives have made beheading their captives an open media spectacle in recent years. Thus the association of Islam and beheadings is not some Orientalist/feminist/Western fantasy, but based on current events.
He continues: "The reality is that every community suffers from forms of domestic violence. It's not about religion; it's about power and control."
Except that religions frequently validate domestic violence against wives and children. The Qur'an and Torah (and there-by Christian Bible) have several examples each. Surah 4:34 in Qur'an is frequently cited by Islamic clerics as a justification for using physical punishment against wives.
"It's not about religion; it's about power and control."
Those are the same thing, really. Religion is, more than anything, a way to acquire and exert power (Look how many leaders claim to be appointed by gods, or to BE gods) and control everybody else...
I think it is quite wrong to state that Saudi Arabia is the most influential Islamic nation today, if you intend to suggest that it is somehow representative or that the average muslim looks to Saudi policy as a ideal to aspire to. Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is entirely alien to most of the Islamic world, and while the Arabian peninsula may have been the birthplace of Mohammed, Islam has grown far beyond its boundaries since the 7th century and Saudi Arabia is only representative of Islam in the minds of ignorant Westerners.
However, if you wish to suggest that Westerners will link beheadings to Islam because of their mistaken belief that Saudi Arabia is representative of Islam, then you might be right.
In the first post about this murder a lot of people were saying that any time a person is heavily involved in a religion, the religious aspect of their life is going to be scrutinized for possible motivation. They were claiming that the framing of this crime as a religious crime is not unique to Muslims (or non-Christians). When the identity of the BTK (that's bind, torture, kill for those of you who are not from the US) killer was finally revealed, it turned out he was the deacon of a church. So where was the scrutiny there? Nearly every article I saw put his position in the church IN CONTRAST to his killing. They all discussed the shock that someone who was such good, church-going folk could possibly be leading a double life as a serial killer. I don't remember seeing anyone questioning whether his Lutheran teachings contributed to his motivation.
I live really close to where this happened, and just last night I served the woman's family after the funeral or maybe a gathering after the funeral- it was very sad.
Here's my problem with the way the honor killings or domestic violence conversation is playing out-
To ME, I think of honor killings as a subset of domestic violence. I think of it as what we call domestic violence in Muslim countries. And I don't think honor killings are really motivated by religion, because there is nothing in that religion to promote such things. I think it is motivated by a deeply patriarchal society that is in many ways different from American patriarchal society. But the point is, to me, the two are basically synonymous. Like chips and crisps, they're called different names based on where they occur. I don't think the people calling this an honor killing are saying that all Muslims are violent, or most muslims, or anything at all like that. They are merely saying that it was possible that this man's cultural influences were more accurately categorized as Pakistani then as American, so they used the word for domestic violence in Pakistan.
I live really close to where this happened, and just last night I served the woman's family after the funeral or maybe a gathering after the funeral- it was very sad.
Here's my problem with the way the honor killings or domestic violence conversation is playing out-
To ME, I think of honor killings as a subset of domestic violence. I think of it as what we call domestic violence in Muslim countries. And I don't think honor killings are really motivated by religion, because there is nothing in that religion to promote such things. I think it is motivated by a deeply patriarchal society that is in many ways different from American patriarchal society. But the point is, to me, the two are basically synonymous. Like chips and crisps, they're called different names based on where they occur. I don't think the people calling this an honor killing are saying that all Muslims are violent, or most muslims, or anything at all like that. They are merely saying that it was possible that this man's cultural influences were more accurately categorized as Pakistani then as American, so they used the word for domestic violence in Pakistan.
What other religion prefers beheading as a method of execution? Why any woman would want to minimize the clear role that Islam played in this evil act is beyond me. There seems to be a huge difference between domestic violence and an honor killing. Mainly, that honor killings are morally justified by those who commit them.
I have a lot of issues with this case and religion is not one of them.
Why is this character being given second degree, when he 'beheaded her'. It was not a spur of the moment thing. One does not carry whatever implement is needed to decapitate someone, on the spur of the moment. The legal system awards the death sentence to people for minor things, and this is one horrific crime.
This message for 'Brown Trash Punk'. I'm not sure what planet you live on, coz honour killings are very much part of the 'culture' in Pakistan. I did not say religion, but the culture. Open any pakistani newspaper and you'll find them galore, and the men feel quite proud in admitting to it. So open your eyes and your mind.