Muzzammil Hassan had a great idea: he established a television station to run programming that would counter stereotypes about Muslims. That sounds like a fine plan…but then his wife asked for a divorce, and his response was to murder and decapitate her, which rather confirms a particularly nasty stereotype.
Unless, perhaps, it's not a stereotype, but simply a fact that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've read several posts about the Danish caricatures, including at least one by someone who comments here, that says something to this effect: "I wouldn't post the Danish caricatures on my blog because I found them crude and based on stereotypes and I see no reason to make fun of these people."…
I have written before about my admiration for Bill Maher. I think he is generally one of the funniest and most insightful commentators on American culture and politics, and I rarely miss his show on Friday night. Sometimes he goes south, as with his views on vaccination, and sometimes he goes for…
More than a week ago, Razib wrote an unfortunate little post in which he displayed all sorts of poor judgment. Since it's short, I'm going to quote the entire post here, including his updates.
The virginity thread generated a lot of response. The virgin lot of the nerd, ah, so cliche. And yet now I…
We should be quaking in our jackboots: a media counterattack is being launched against us wicked atheists. They have a website!
American Vision is launching a relentless and systematic response to militant atheism. We've produced a brilliant 2-minute commercial that we plan to broadcast globally…
Ah, Islam, the religion of peace. And with a high regard for the female of the species. Bloody slime.
Oh! Behold! The Irony!!
Seriously, when it comes to religion to justify his means
they forget things like this.
There isnt not a religion better than others, all are part of the same flawed and sickening pack.
Ironic, but I hope that we can take note that while religion promotes cruel patriarchy across the spectrum, domestic violence is a universal problem no neccessarily religion-based, and includes many horrific crimes. (Remember that guy in CA that killed 8 - 10 people by setting the house on fire at Xmas party to get back at his ex-wife). I always think of it this way - a man may be a first class citizen in his own country but a woman is second class no matter where she goes.
That being said, nothing give rights of dominion over others like "god" does.
She deserved it.
Ah, yes. Misogyny and religion. Like chocolate and peanut butter, they just seem to go together so well.
Can anyone say "self defeating"?
I wish the idiot had chosen a different way of confirming the stereotype by killing the poor woman. I hope he gets jailed for life.
tragic irony anyone?
But Islam is a religion of peace. IN fact, this case illustrates it very well. He was a peaceful loving man, but his wife attacked him viciously and unprovoked by asking for a divorce. What was he supposed to do? Should he have bent over and let her shaft him as a goodbye gift?
Similarly, when muslims all over the world burn cars, decapitate people and blow up buildings they are just reacting to unprovoked, vicious and evil attacks on themselves. Are they supposed to just sit back and take unlimited abuse?
And so the muslim mind goes.
I totally agree that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny.
But isn't it a bit far-fetched to connect the murder of his wife to his particular religious belief? After all, this DOES happen (way too often, I admit) also with Christians and even Atheists.
Does anyone else thing he more likely did it because he is a disturbed individual than because his religion compelled him?
I know of plenty of non Muslims who become enraged if their wives try to divorce them; I know of plenty who become enraged if a mere girlfriend tried to quit herself. Maybe he did this because his is like many people, an animal in a suit and a bit beyond rationality at times.
When I was younger my attitude towards religion was "not for me, but whatever floats your boat." In the past few years, however, I have steadily become more disgusted by religion. Books, movies, music, people that I enjoyed in the past I now feel nothing for or am disgusted by due to religious content. As long as I can remember I have always been suspicious of authority, but these days there is no quicker way to get me to classify a person as an idiot, granted possibly an idiot savant, than to hear that person spout religious piety.
@Chris: It happens in atheism, and any religion. It's just we atheists call that murder. They call it honor killings.
Poor woman.
There isnt not a religion better than others, all are part of the same flawed and sickening pack.
The reason being most of them are related and based on each other. Especially when it comes to Abrahamic religions.
Interesting side-note: My spell-checker insists on changing 'Abrahamic' to 'Abracadabra' ...
@Michelle:
I know, however the article doesn't mention him saying anything about "honour killing" -- you kind of imply it is/was.
In my opinion, so far it's just another example of domestic violence. Though, I admit, with a lingering bad taste of religious fervor.
Honour killing is such a bizarre way of saying it. It's almost as if they hired some PR consultant to make it look better.
Anecdotal evidence of religious people behaving badly doesn't prove anything, but there sure are a lot of anecdotes.
Hard to tell how much of a role his religion played in this. It may well have been a contributing factor, but given the circumstances, (He handed himself in immediately) he doesn't seem to be using his religion as a justification. Thing is (as others have pointed out) This kind of murder could have been commited by someone without any religious beliefs.
Chris @ #9:
Ms. Aenthropi @ #10:
Fair points, but religious belief may encourage abuse of women because:
1. The Abrahamic faiths are inherently misogynist
2. Belief in fairy tales requires a person to engage in a kind of intentional insanity... the same kind of insanity that can make beheading your wife seem like a reasonable and prudent thing to do.
3. There's plenty of documented evidence of teaching within the muslim faith that supports the abuse and murder of women.
4. The belief in forgiveness by the sky-daddy makes criminal behavior more acceptable. In the muslim world, that amounts to a one-beheading-for-free gift card.
Because of the above, if you took a count and a survey of wife-beheaders, I bet you'd find few atheists in the bunch.
I've got to admit though, the decapitation certainly seems to have an Islamic ring to it. I wonder how his first marrage ended?
Christians do this all the time people. ALL THE TIME. To say anything else would be bigoted. Besides, this was just domestic violence, regrettable, but nothing to see, really nothing new. Moving on now to pictures of pretty squids.
In the week or so since I floated my immigration policy both Geert Wilders has been denied entry in Britain to appease violent muslims threatening riots, and a beheading in Buffalo by a muslim man declaring to fight muslim stereotypes.
Anyones mind changed at all? A flicker of doubt for Tony, Tulse, Alyson, Stu? Or does open immigration remain the immutable law of the left?
Of course it's anecdotal, and of course there are also atheists who do evil things. However, atheists don't claim their unbelief is a cure for evil, as the theists do.
To this and similar arguments. The culture that this man is part of encourages and condones this type of behavior, and his religion is the central and defining aspect of his culture. So, no, it is not far fetched to state that this mans religion probably had something to do with his murdering his wife. Anytime you have a primitive and or barbaric ideology in such a central role in a culture the probability of this type of behavior increases. So, sure things like this can and do happen in less barbaric cultures. So? All the more reason to try and stomp religion into irrelevance within our own culture, to reduce the incidence of this type of behavior.
Forgot to add that this guy, Hassan, was obviously heavily invested in his faith, which explains why he would dedicate time amd money to defending Islam through his tv station.
Truth is, we don't know what justification he used for his actions, but there's plenty of historical precedent to support the theory that the act was fueled by his religious beliefs.
Ahhh, but PZ, he wasn't a True Muslim™. In fact, he was probably teh Athiest!!11!!
[comic sans]Yet more religion bashing from PZ Meyers! I bet you wouldn't have the guts to criticize Islam![/comic sans]
Oh, wait...
Mocking fatwa envy aside, this was a horrendous crime. What makes it particularly easy to tie into Islam is how Aasiya Hassan was murdered. Beheading these days is a particularly Muslim habit. If her husband only stabbed her, it probably and unfortunately (as domestic violence murders are far too common) wouldn't be as noteworthy, but he beheaded her.
If this monster wanted to counter Islamic stereotypes, the only worse way for him to have done so would have been to strap on some explosives and do himself in at the same time.
I really hope you are being facetious here. If not, you are a very sick individual.
Off topic, but I was wondering if I could direct the attention of some of my fellow pharyngulites towards this YouTube video that asks for help in combating the creationist vote bots on YouTube.
Funny thing is, Islam has nothing against divorce and even makes it pretty easy.
When the man asks for it, anyway.
You know how they say, no smoke without fire? I don't really think that's always true.
But this here, it's more like smoke, thick plumes of billowing black smoke, stampedes of animals running away, and people ringing up the fire service yelling OH MY GOD WE'RE HAVING A FIRE! OH THE BURNING, IT BURNS ME! EVACUATE ALL THE SCHOOLCHILDREN! I CAN'T EVEN SEE WHERE THE KNOB IS.
When Muhammad was alive the role of women amongst the desert Arabs in the 6th or 7th Century was necessarily circumscribed. The Koran, supposedly a collection of Muhammad's thoughts & edicts, although based upon Bronze Age myths, is described as 'perfect'.
It is now the 21st Century. People who follow advice from this book, or similar books such as the bible, must be either crazy or stupid.
"Fatwa for Professor Myers....sign here. Thankyou. A homicidal religious maniac should be with you in 3 to 5 days"
Where, I wonder, are the atheist muslim websites? Yes, I know that some claim that this is an oxymoron, but who is doing what to offer support to those who feel that Allah doesn't quite do it for them? Has The God Delusion been translated into Arabic?
I sometimes think we forget that there is one god who really is mad with us, and is prepared to do something about it.
Off topic: Matt, this does not change my perspective on immigration. I still think your proposal is extremely racist.
On Topic: The level of cognitive dissonance involved would be staggering... if we had not observed the same (in kind if not degree) in almost every* religious person we encounter.
* some notable exceptions include some regular posters here, such as Scott Hatfield. I consider these folk to be the extreme outliers (at the opposite end of the spectrum to Phelps in wingnnuttery)
The violence suggests a testicular deficiency to me, Mr. Hassan couldn't deal with an undiluted women. Any hope of his being locked up with Charlie Manson?
PZ, good on ya, by the way, for calling it like it is. Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny.
I know you get nasty-grams from creo-bots. Ever get any from Muzzammil Hassan's brand of crazy? Do share.
valhar2000 @8,
And so the muslim mind goes
That's right, because every Muslim in the world has beheaded somebody. And if one or two haven't yet, it's because they've lacked the opportunity. The city I live in is, at a guess, something between 10% and 15% Muslim. You can't imagine how irritating my morning commute is, what with all the burnt cars, decapitated people and blown-up buildings littering the streets.
Ah well, you're not the first person to mistake Pharyngula for Gates of Vienna, and you probably won't be the last.
Richard Harris wrote:
[blockquote]When Muhammad was alive the role of women amongst the desert Arabs in the 6th or 7th Century was necessarily circumscribed.[/blockquote]
"Necessarily" how? When has the subjugation of women ever been "necessary"?
...wait, wait, they're shocked and saddened by his arrest? Surely they should be glad he's locked up? That just seems wrong...
He's being charged with 2nd degree murder? A beheading is 2nd degree murder?! What. The. Fuck. That means he probably won't even be spending the rest of his life in prison. I hope it's only because the DA thinks that he can't win the case for a 1st degree murder charge. But if it isn't, what is that saying? That waiting a few weeks after your wife attempts to divorce you and then deciding to cut off her head is a crime of passion?
I suppose if he'd been an Aztec and we found that he'd been engaging in daily human sacrifice, some would be saying, "Well you can't PROVE that he's doing that just to make sure the sun rises, murder happens in every culture"
Give me a fucking break. You really think someone can consider the Quran to be the word of god and read those mysogynistic passages and not be influenced by them in the slightest? Could it not even be a factor in his motivations? Do you really think this would have been exactly as likely if he was a Jainist? Come on.
Yes, I agree that all Abrahamic religions are patriarchal and mysoginist but I can't remind of a Jew or Christian males slitting the throat of their wives and separating their head from their bodies or commanding the gang banging of their own daughters in name of "honor". Islam is really awful and I don't know in name of what we have still to be permissive regarding its murderous drive. To protect or own throats and properties? And salaam 'alaykum...
Have to disagree with you on this one PZ.
I agree that many many muslims use their interpretation of Islam as a tool of misogyny and towards maintaining a patriarchal society, but a large number of Muslims do respecting the rights of women, and follow secular laws (such as the majority of muslims living in the urban cities in India).
I think that as people get less religious, and realize that the laws and behavior should be based on an objective and rational set of principles rather than some divine set of laws, they behave better.
I don't think that *all muslims* use Islam a patriarchal tool of misogyny as you seem to imply. As literacy, education and science spreads, muslims are less likely to behave in such a barbaric manner.
What I don't get is how is beheading someone only second degree murder? I mean it must be pretty hard to take someone's head off, so wouldn't going out to the garage to get the 'Headchopper 3000' count as malice aforethought?
Yes, I do not understand the 2nd degree murder charge either. Perhaps there's some legal thing that we're missing, but that seems just a bit odd.
But I'm sure the family will be VERRRRYY understanding of this "honor killing". This stuff is beyond repulsive and disgusting, and yes Mr. Hassan has just confirmed every ugly thing everyone else thinks about Muslims.
"That's right, because every Muslim in the world has beheaded somebody. And if one or two haven't yet, it's because they've lacked the opportunity. The city I live in is, at a guess, something between 10% and 15% Muslim"
I think the point is not that these beliefs always lead to this, it's that they can be a contributing factor. It's like a drug. Some people can take drugs and not have a problem, and a minority of them go nuts. But do we say drugs are harmless because a minority of drug users become seriously fucked up?
OMG! Muzzammil Hassan looks like John Hagee!
Unless, perhaps, it's not a stereotype, but simply a fact that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny.
This is meant to be ironic, right? You know full well that there are tons of white Christians, and most likely atheists too, who've murdered their wives and rarely do we tie it to their religion.
Also some of these kinds of murders are related to backwards elements of culture rather than religion. The practice of FGM, for example, is tied to a certain area of the world, and those Islamic countries outside of that area do not consider it Islamic practice. I presume you are claiming that this was an 'honour killing', but there are similarly awful practices amongst Hindus of 'bride burning'.
Let's also not forget that there are fully Muslim women who are challenging the patriarchy of their religious tradition and the arrival on the scene of female Imams shows that they are making progress, however slow it may be.
It seems false to state that Islam does not suffer from stereotypes. Islam might contain patriarchal misogyny but so do most other religions. There's no reason to single out Islam for special treatment. Instead we should be arguing that supstition and patriarchy are often held in place by the religious mindset which resists change.
Siddharth, if only, if only.
Give me a call when people get more religious.
>>>As literacy, education and science spreads, muslims are less likely to behave in such a barbaric manner.
The Islamic world, as many Pharyngulites will be quick to remind us, was once the epicenter of civilization and font of literacy and education. Let us look back to that golden age and see if barbarism was 'less likely' then.
I believe that thoughts and edicts of Mohammed are actually in the writings known as "The Hadith", not the Koran which came from Allah, through the Angel Gariel, direc to the prophet, and is therefore "uninterprated".
Incidentally, although the Koran/the Hadith contains lots of prohibitions, for example alcohol and pork, there is no need for Muslims to eschew perfume.
The reason? The prophet liked perfume.
In an interesting programme about what happened to the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the BBC interviewed many who had taken part in the original book burning, 20 years ago. For some, it had strengthened their faith; others thought it was a mistake, in retrospect, because of all the bad publioity. And, of course, Rushdie is still alive, and the book still in print.
I believe the violence and harshness of the Muslim faith has to do with the fact that it evolved in the deserts of Arabia. Most things that evolve in the desert are violent and harsh....cactus, scorpions, etc.
Til death do us part-?
Ugh, the 9:31 post should read
'give me a call when people get less religious'.
*Does anyone else thing he more likely did it because he is a disturbed individual than because his religion compelled him?*
No.
Unrelated, but - PZ, have you seen this Jesus and Mo strip yet? I immediately thought of you when I did:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/17/side/
yeah, prison for the self-righteous ruffian: Three-square meals, soft bed, television, weight room and occasional congress at the showers.
>>>In an interesting programme about what happened to the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the BBC interviewed many who had taken part in the original book burning, 20 years ago. For some, it had strengthened their faith; others thought it was a mistake, in retrospect, because of all the bad publioity. And, of course, Rushdie is still alive, and the book still in print.
How fucking interesting. Interesting like the big ratings Charlie Manson always gets on Dateline. Who are you anyway, Wayne Gale?
I'll be real fucking interested to hear from Theo Van Gogh's murderer to hear if thrusting that knife through his solar plexus strengthened his faith or weakened it. Be fucking interested to find out if he regrets it because of the 'bad publicity' too. Mebbe MSNBC will make that one a two-parter. Barba WaWa could put him in her 'Ten most fucking interesting people' list. I'll make popcorn.
I'm reminded of an old standup routine, with the 'distraught' witness to an accident' declaiming through tears: 'Oh, officer, it was horrible... He slipped and fell on my knife... seventeen times!'
And yes, re the 'other folk do this' line, yes, sure they do, with guns and knives and stuff... But the beheading angle, especially for this particular gentleman in these particular circumstances, well, let's just say it doth stick out a bit.
And re contributing factors: exactly. Smoking doesn't necessarily kill you either--just ups the odds significantly of certain pathologies--and most of us are plenty comfortable warning against getting into said habit for exactly that reason. I see getting into a religion as much the same thing. It may do you little harm, or at least do nothing quite so obvious, dramatic, nor traumatic as this... But generally, selling out your own reason and swearing fealty to a 'faith' is a filthy, disgusting habit, anyway, and one somewhat upping the odds, at least, of certain kinds of trouble you just don't need.
Not all muslims are Arabs. Not all Arabs are muslims. All muslims believe in in crazy ass backwards religion the same as Christianity, Judaism and any other with great wallops of pants-on-your-head craziness. One that promotes violence, anti-science and the general trifecta of nuttiness you usually get with religion.
It seems like a lot of people here seem to think that Muslim means anyone from the middle-east, when it doesn't. When talking about Muslims it means you're talking about someone who believes in Islam, could be abso-friggin-lutely anybody.
...Anyone else find this REALLY telling as to the fact that the American media has been pumping out all this crap about Islamofascism etc and trying to identify anyone with a bit of a brown tint to them by their religion first and anything else second for the past eight years? And that even pretty smart people have fallen in with it, because I've heard some rather smart people tell me not to speak badly of muslims and they've said it in a manner that suggests that they think muslim is the name for an ethnicity, rather than just people who believe in Islam.
Seriously, people...
>>>pumping out all this crap about Islamofascism etc and trying to identify anyone with a bit of a brown tint to them by their religion first and anything else second for the past eight years?
This is false. The American media studiously avoided discussion of the Washington Snipers religion when that went down.
Many European examples abound too. Though I expect you'd approve of that filtering, seeing as how you singled out American media.
Tabby Lavalamp @ # 36
"Necessarily" how? When has the subjugation of women ever been "necessary"?
I did not imply that the subjugation of women ever been "necessary". But when we lived in more primitive societies, the role of women, compared to their role today, was circumscribed by their biology, & the nature of human society.
The restrictions, in democratic countries, have largely been lifted, except that conservative religionists, particularly Islamists, would still wish to subjugate women
Siddharth,
Point to where PZ said anything at all about "all muslims". Sure some, perhaps most, don't practice the hateful bits of their religion. But that -is- what they're religion calls for. The fact that they are better human beings than Muslims doesn't change the fact that it's a particularly loathsome religion. Those who do reject the terrible parts of their religion are to be commended for doing so. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out that they are rejecting large chunks of their religion.
And, yes, of course all of the above can and has been said about Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever you have. But that's just a given and doesn't excuse them at all.
Ask any muslim, "Islam is the Quran". The koran says to beat your wife, which he did for a year; women must obey their husbands, which she didn't; and to behead people, which he did.
But maybe that's all a coincidence.
Mighty T
A swing and a miss, it would seem. Where you trying to address a particular comment? Much of what you say may be valid, but no one here has conflated Arab with muslim, and just because some here are trashing the religion of someone who committed a vile crime does not equate to them believing that all followers of that religion are bad people.
As for the US media, come on!!! People should know by now that if they want decent NEWS they should watch Comedy Central.
Yep, all muslims are not the same.
It goes without saying that the word’s connotations are different for Arabic speakers and for speakers of Turkish, Malay, or Bengali. Turks, who live under a secular law derived from the legal systems of post-Napoleonic Europe, are seldom disposed to think that, as Muslims, they must live in a state of continual submission to a divine law that governs all of social and political life. The 20 percent of Muslims who are Arabs, however, feel the mesmerizing rhythms of the Koran as an unbrookable current of compulsion and are apt to take “Islam” literally. For them, this particular act of submission may mean renouncing not only freedom but also the very idea of citizenship. It may involve retreating from the open dialogue on which the secular order depends into the “shade of the Koran,” as Sayyid Qutb put it, in a disturbing book that has inspired the Muslim Brotherhood ever since. Citizenship is precisely not a form of brotherhood, of the kind that follows from a shared act of heartfelt submission: it is a relation among strangers, a collective apartness, in which fulfillment and meaning are confined to the private sphere.
quote taken from
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html
@ Siddharth #41
What you just said boils down to: as Muslims become more secular, less religious, they behave better. I agree. Take the Islam out of the Muslim, and you have a fine person. I'm sure there's some fine cultural heritage you can hang on to regarding art, food and ritual. Just let go of Bronze Age violence and misogyny.
However, the Muslims of India are not your best example for proper behavior - not after the riots in Calcutta in response to Johann Hari's recent article.
A few days ago, PZ, you made a post about not getting too excited about some new research because a proper scientific paper had yet to be published.
But apparently, that sentiment only applies when you can't sensationalize a tragic news story, and spin it into a religious rant.
Don't get me wrong, religion sucks, murder sucks, and if it turns out religious belief contributed to this mans actions, you'll be well entitled to your rant.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Liam, first, politics aint science. In science you have the benefit of being able to call something 'just a hypothesis' until the facts bear out. In politics, you have to make decisions based on what you know, or think you know, right now.
Second, have you read anything at all about what took place in Britain over the weekend? Have you read the threats to British leaders which they caved to and banned Mr. Wilders from entry?
How much evidence do you need?
Regarding all muslims vs. Islam vs. Arab vs whatever.
There are nutjobs in every corner of the world. They have had different education, they have different levels of intelligence, they have different color skin, hair, eyes. They had varying relationships with their parents, children, friends, and colleagues.
The common factor is they are nutjobs.
However - the fact that most religions accept and allow behaviors that more secular (sane?) people consider wierd, allows such nutjobs a free reign to express their particular nutjobbery. This includes extreme violence, avoidance of medical support, approval of misogyny, support for castes, racism, and so on.
This guy is simply an example of the insanity that religiobots accept and support every day. An extreme example, granted. But no different fundamentally than the Xians lining the streets outside planned parenthood clinics, than Hindus burning a widow alongside her dead husband, than Ayatollahs' declaration of Fatwa on Rushdie or the Danish cartoonists.
Religion is insanity.
As a rational person, you should not assume that all Muslims are the same, the same way that not all atheists are the same. I once dated a Muslim man, and he was not misogynistic at all. He even said that the Koran forbids polygamy because the type of polygamy allowed is impossible to achieve (such as treating all wives equally). If Muzzammil Hassan were a Christian or an atheist, he still would be a huge misogynistic jerk and murderer. My own father is an atheist and he's the biggest jerk I know (though not a murder yet). It's great to point out Hassan's hypocrisy, but it is wrong to claim that these stereotypes are true.
I read this story on cnn.com. Guess what, this guy was already divorced. The wife he murdered was wife #2. We have another Drew Peterson here.
As a rational person, you should not assume that all Muslims are the same, the same way that not all atheists are the same
No one did.
Ok, now I know it's not my fault that my blockquotes haven't been working recently.
Say what you want about religions and the religious, but I will not stand for calumny against the flora and fauna of the world's desert ecosystems. Scorpions, for example, evolved in the ocean and now occupy every habitat you can think of--they do well in deserts because of their very low metabolic rates, but most of them cannot be considered desert animals by any stretch. Cactuses are neither violent nor harsh (well, except for chollas, those bastards), but do possess a large number of fascinating advanced physiological, biochemical, and sharp-pointed adaptations to dry environments.
The Mojave desert that I know best is home to a variety of mellow, laid-back, harmless, retiring, endearing, nonviolent, and beautiful animals like desert iguanas, desert tortoises, banded geckos, kangaroo rats, kit foxes, et cetera. The environment might be "harsh" but its denizens are not.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled religion-bashing.
There IS a distinction between honor killing and domestic violence and it is a category mistake to mix up the two. Details at
http://www.meforum.org/article/2067
(I am told Chesler is "islamophobic"..that may be true; I am just letting you know so that no liberal sensibilities are offended)
Surely you wouldn't be suggesting that Christianity is any less patriarchal and misogynist? There have been as many beheadings committed by devout Christians as any other religion I would most respectfully submit.
A Muslim who made a living trying to counter Muslim stereotypes commits a heinous crime that has come to be a Fundamentalist Muslim stereotype. It just doesn't matter why this nut job killed his wife; I still have 3rd degree burns from my Irony Meter exploding on me when I read the news this morning.
I don't have the stomach for a thread like this today, but I did want to pop in to cheer that last month the Iranian One Million Signatures Campaign
http://www.we-change.org/english/
was awarded the de Beauvoir Prize for Women's Freedom.
Also, here's a recent interview with lawyer and activist Shirin Ebadi that some might find interesting:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/4/nobel_winning_iranian_activist_att…
Maybe, as part of the divorce, she drew cartoons of him.
WRT "only" 2d degree murder:
it's not my field and I can't be arsed to go check. But "1st degree" murder doesn't necessarily mean "worse than other murders". It can simply mean "murder under certain specified circumstances", such as "the victim was a police officer". If New York law does not list "chopping your wife's head off" as one of those circumstances, the murder in question wouldn't be 1st degree.
Bear in mind that there were no "degrees" of murder at common law, and there still aren't in many jurisdictions. Degrees were invented later and were put in place (where put in place at all) individually, by separate sovereigns. (OB-scienceblogs: think of this as analogous to further development after a speciation event). A "degree" in murder is whatever the jurisdiction in question defines it as; what is 1st degree in New York might not be in some other state, are for all I know there might be some US states that have never introduced the concept of degrees.
Inquisitor @44,
I think the point is not that these beliefs always lead to this, it's that they can be a contributing factor
Fair enough, I don't think anybody could reasonably contest that. In fact, I think one could plausibly argue something like, "Most predominantly Muslim cultures have a traditional view of women that can make this sort of crime more likely, and there are many specifically Islamic religious beliefs that only reinforce those cultural tendencies" (or what have you). Not sure I agree 100%, but it's not an unreasonable view. But "so the muslim mind goes" is a brush just slightly too broad for my taste, given that I know a number of Muslims, a subset of whom have managed thus far to refrain from beheadings.
#35: Oh! That strong blow to the solar plexus winded me!
But I still have some fight in me! Let me ask you this: if you caught some of the muslims in your town, while they are on a break from all the pillaging, of course, and you asked them what they think of Theo Van Gogh's murder, or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or the violent protests that took place in Indonesia after the Danish cartoon incident, how much condemnation of those acts do you think you would find in their replies?
I'll bet some of their answers would be vaguely reminiscent of certain words or phrases I may have used in my first comment.
#74, your submission is rejected. Beheadings have been an islamic tradition since mohammed and co. did 600 or so at the battle of Badr, and their holy booki exhorts it in several places. Christians have other ways of kiling unbelievers.
Given the circumstances that we know about, the couple, the TV station and its mandate, it seems unlikely that he didn't know what type of connection would be made and what conclusions drawn by his actions.
As for the second degree murder charge, we could surmise that he killed his wife in a jealous rage, and then beheaded her.
All in all a terrible tragedy and whilst it would of course be wrong to extrapolate from this point that all Muslims are wife killing decapitators, we can add this incident to the ever growing pile of evidence that societies steeped in the Abrahamic faiths tend to have backwards attitudes towards women drilled into the men from an early age.
Misogyny and religion go hand in hand, there's simply no denying it.
Posted by: Siddharth:
If they're not using Islam as a patriarchal tool of misogyny, it's not Islam that is being practiced. This guy should pull a Mohammed, and claim to get a special revelation that gives him the OK in this particular instance.
Of course, that view has been solidified since reading 'Why I am not a Muslim.' I haven't researched it yet, but has been the critical opinion of the book? I first heard of it from Richard Dawkins. It's something of a tough read, but worth it.
knowdoubt @74, would you respectfully submit your evidence for this claim?
>>>There have been as many beheadings committed by devout Christians as any other religion I would most respectfully submit.
I respectfully tried to verify it with this google search. Didnt come up with much, other than St. Valentine. That was a little while back.
http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial…
As an aside, I live in a suburb of Paris, which has a lot, if not a majority of Muslims living here.
They are, pretty much a law abiding group of people who do not seek preferential treatment from the law, and whilst they will protest the Danish cartoons or the ban on the hajib in schools, their protests are peaceful and they accept and obey the law when it is made.
The stereotype of the mad Muslim is unhelpful because it is unfair to suggest they are more insane than any other organised religoon, nor are they incapable of accomodating a secular society.
They're just people, as open to reason as the rest of us.
If some theists are good people, they're good DESPITE their religion, not because of it.
The 20 percent of Muslims who are Arabs, however, feel the mesmerizing rhythms of the Koran as an unbrookable current of compulsion and are apt to take “Islam” literally
Pssst, Matt... you kind of completely gave yourself away there.
That's a bit too biologically deterministic for my liking. The disregard for women and women's rights is much more accurately linked to hierarchical, agricultural societies than to 'primitive' societies. Generally, the only egalitarian societies with anything like gender parity have been hunter-gatherers and modern developed ones (in theory, if not in practice.)
http://tinyurl.com/dyg5ho
"A Jordanian man has been charged with premeditated murder for killing his sister while she was asleep over her alleged “suspicious behaviour,” a judicial official said yesterday. ...
“He said he regretted murdering his sister, particularly after forensic tests proved that she was virgin,” the official said."
But it's not just Muslims who engage in these "honor" murders. Remember that stoning to death of a young woman in Northern Iraq by her own relatives which was caught on video? Those were Kurdish Yezidi, not Muslims. And there have been cases involving other faiths. Honor crimes are a feature of cultures in which the "honor" of the clan depends on female sexual "virtue" (a notion with religious valence). As cultures liberalize and secularize these kinds of crimes will become less common.
>>>As cultures liberalize and secularize these kinds of crimes will become less common.
Our culture is liberal and secular. This barbarism happened here. By someone who wanted explicitly to prove his culture was not barbaric.
Tell ya what, Colugo, lets let their cultures go through the liberalizing and secularizing in their countries. We'll watch carefully, and when it reaches an acceptable level, we'll let em back in. Till then, ban em. Better than war for 'hearts and minds', bombing them into decent behavior, right?
He should have done it the honest Christian way. Chop her up, and store her in a freezer for a few decades.
Don't forget a backup generator, or she could thaw in case of a power outage.
Stu,
>>>Pssst, Matt... you kind of completely gave yourself away there.
just to be clear, that post was a quote from the link below it. yea Im a skeptic on Muslim integration in the West, but no plagiarist.
I realize it was a typo, but I kind of like "religoon." The Phelpses are a bunch of ignorant religoons.
Thus declares myopic, hard of hearing, tone deaf Matt. Deal in absolutes much?
"Unless, perhaps, it's not a stereotype, but simply a fact that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny."
Religion is but ONE piece of misogynistic patriarchy to point fingers at here.
To quote Melissa McEwan: "note that Islam was only one part of his environment. He is also an American resident, which made him the beneficiary of all the patriarchy-conferred privilege inherent to that environment, too. He is a member of a family, which likely granted him a higher status for being male. He is/was a businessperson working in corporate America, which favors and privileges men. Et cetera."
Yes, Islam (like all of the Abrahamic religions) is misogynstic. But we can't pretend that's the ONLY aspect at fault here, if we wish to be honest about the accumulative effects of privilege and misogyny.
Val @79,
if you caught some of the muslims in your town ... and you asked them what they think of Theo Van Gogh's murder, or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or the violent protests that took place in Indonesia after the Danish cartoon incident, how much condemnation of those acts do you think you would find in their replies?
I don't have to "catch" the Muslims in my town. I can walk down the corridor here at the office and ask some of my colleagues, or ask my greengrocer while I'm picking up parsnips, or ask the woman at my dry cleaners, or the guy who owns the bike shop I use, etc. etc. etc. And in many cases I don't have to speculate as to what they'd say; I know, because we've discussed it. You'll be surprised (but no normal person will be) to learn that they were forthright in their condemnation.[FN1] They were horrified, just as most Roman Catholics were horrified at the murders carried out by the IRA, just as most Americans living here were horrified by their government's crimes at Abu Ghraib. (Do you even know any Muslims?)
I'm sure there are Muslims here who were thrilled at the atrocities you mention; just as I've known catholic Irish people who like the IRA, and just as there are Americans who still apologise for the Bush administration's war crimes. But that's not true of most of them; and for those of whom it is true, I find that "and so the minds of vicious dickheads go" works better than your own suggestion. More universal, you see, and less likely to be interpreted as simple stupid bigotry.
[FN1] Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? Taqiyya and all that; those people just can't be trusted. In fact, my greengrocer proudly displays the Obama/Biden button I picked up for him -- proof, as though more proof were needed, that he is a secret Islamist terrorist.
simply a fact that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny
Beautiful theory, meet the Minangkabau.
PZ Meyers, you are COMPLETELY WRONG in linking this atrocious act with Muslim religion. You are preaching against this religion of peace, wisdom, goodwill and virtue, and let yourself be blind by your religion hatred.
And because you have done this, I'm ordering a Fatwa against you. Now who dare anyone else say that muslims aren't peaceful?!?
As I understand it (IANAL), murder "in the 1st degree" defines a murder that is premeditated, carefully and rationally planned and executed ("with malice aforethought"). 2nd degree is for murder that is intentional, but not planned and usually done in the heat of the moment, as when finding a spouse in the act of adultery and attacking and killing one or both of them.
The victim being a police officer or a child or a pregnant woman would be a "special circumstance" on top of whatever type of murder would apply.
If they're not using Islam as a patriarchal tool of misogyny, it's not Islam that is being practiced.
And if they aren't creationists they aren't Christian I suppose?
Give it a rest!
This article is interesting. It considers cultures which share some key characteristics,
#Extreme importance of personal status and sensitivity to insult
#Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing
#Obsessive male dominance
#Paranoia over female sexual infidelity
#Primacy of family rights over individual rights
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM
Can't remember where I first found it. Quite possibly here.
If I say that Playboy is misogynistic and exploitative, why on earth would you think that I am therefore implying that Penthouse is not?
as for beheadings, name one Christian motivated beheading in the past 100 years. Not that I am defending Christianity, but beheadings do seem to be pretty strongly associated with Islam and Arab culture.
WTF? This happened in Buffalo New York and the asshole confessed? Does this douche bag think this is what ever third world sandbox he crawled out of he can get away with this crap?
@#62 Darrell E
I didn't feel like naming names or pointing at comments, but maybe I should have. My post was directed at the people who were criticizing PZ and saying that all muslims aren't like that. All muslims aren't like that, true enough, just like all Christians aren't the Phelps clan but I don't think it's wrong to point out they're all on the same tree (possibly in the same tree).
It seemed like those people were viewing muslim and arab as synonyms, it's a bit of confusion that seems to be springing up more and more. So in essence I think what you said in your post and what I was trying to say are the same thing? Oh dear...
...I'm blaming breakfast scotch for me managing to mangle my own points.
New York penal code defining first degree murder can be found here: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS
First degree murder depends on who the victim is (although the torture provision might apply). I remember a similar uproar when John Lennon was murdered--people couldn't understand why Chapman was being charged with 2nd degree murder.
Steve @97,
unlawful homicide without malice aforethought is by definition no murder. (Definitions vary a bit from place to place, but "U.H. w/o M.A." is, essentially, manslaughter; but bear in mind that "malice aforethought" doesn't always mean what people assume it means.)
"First degree" means whatever the specific criminal code in question says it means, and that something can vary significantly from one place to another. As I noted, "degrees of murder" is an alien concept to the common law, so there is no single idea underlying the "degrees" defined in those common-law jusrisdictions that have added the concept.
In the case of New York (where this killing took place), the act in question doesn't constitute 1st degree murder because its circumstances are not on the specified list of those that make the crime "murder in the first"[FN1]. That doesn't mean the killing is less heinous in the eyes of the law; it just means it's not on the list. If I killed you by splitting you from groin to chops with a chainsaw, then dissolved you in acid, then flushed your dissolved body down the toilet, and then stomped on a kitten for good measure, that would be pretty heinous, but it wouldn't be 1st degree murder. At least, it wouldn't be in New York. Maybe there are jurisdictions that define "chopping your wife's head off" or "chainsawing Steve in half" as 1st degree, but for a question of New York law, those jurisdictions are irrelevant.
[FN1] As it turns out, I could be arsed to go look it up after all. It's a long and detailed list, but it is exclusive: if what you did isn't on it, then whatever you're charged with, it won't be 1st degree murder. You can check it out here. It's an amazingly crap website; when you get there, you want to look for Penal Law § 125.27. Sorry, I can't give you a direct URL; a java search box will take you there (or not, as the spirit moves it).
name one Christian motivated beheading in the past 100 years.
http://effectmeasure.blogspot.com/2006/02/christian-beheadings.html
Do we really know that Christianity's patriarchy doesn't have some influence on domestic violence in this country?
Or is it the case that while people still think that way, they
are not willing to say so?
Anyone here think the rape-murder mechanism in honor killings, also euphemistically described by Don here
>>>
#Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing
#Obsessive male dominance
#Paranoia over female sexual infidelity
#Primacy of family rights over individual rights
<<<
functions in a similar sociobiological way as Lions killing offspring within his pride sired by rival males?
euphemistically? Couldn't you find a nicer word for it?
Saying that an atheist could have done it completely misses the point.
The religious liberals and religous moderates keep telling us that, 'religion is good moral education', and it keeps us moral.
Well, evidently not.
A devout muslim could not protect himself from his rage with his religious morals.
Oh, and about honor killings. They were allowed in Brazil until the 1980's. I think it is still OK if the man catches the woman in the act. Notice the misogyny?
Some of the countries have an out for a 'Crime of Passion/Rage'.
Of course some allow it outright.
It is not true that this will decrease with more education.
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know...), in Turkey, more than half of the perpetrators were at least high school educated.
I don't think this man is using Islam as a defense or a reason for why he killed/mutilated his wife, and if he ISN'T then it's not an honor killing. Is it not possible that he was a sick bastard who had a penchant for abusing his wife, like so many other men? Is it possible that he was a hypocrite who worked in a field where he claimed to be religious, but in his private life was a total jerk? Those people who commit honor killings are usually very vocal about why they killed the people they did, and how they are totally justified by religion. This man seems to have snapped or gone completely deranged.
I think the correct title of this post is:
"ur doing it rong"
I guess Mr. Hassan was thinking of other stereotypes that he wanted to counter. Like, they all have Mohammad in their names, and they all wear funny hats, and eat a lot of falafel. That kind of stuff.
I cant believe this happened in my own backyard and I had no idea. The news around here has been so focused on the plane crash in Clarence, I never saw even a whisper about this.
I heard about this a few days ago from one of my roommates who apparently knew the victim somehow (she gave me the impression that she had something to do with the film "Muslims in Love," though I can't find the name Aasiya Hassan on the movie's site.)
I thought that was ironic, but hearing that her husband had established a station with the intent of countering stereotypes blows that out of the water.
If there is a stereotype of a Muslim, it is certainly not new, nor are references to it. I was just reminded of something I'd read, and, lo, I have the book at hand. The following addresses the mid 6th century, after the period of Islam's wildfire spread through Europe, Africa, and Asia had run its course and the time of managing the great, disparate new flock began.
"Cities, nations, whole sects and races, Arab pagans, Jews, Christians, Manichaeans, Zoroastrians, Truanian pagans had been swallowed up into this new vast empire of Muhammad's successors. It has hitherto been the common characteristic of all the great unifying religious initiators of the world, the common oversight, that they have accepted the moral and theological ideals to which the first appeal was made, as though they were universal ideals."
snip
"Then, as the new teaching spread and stereotyped itself, it had to work on a continually more uncongenial basis, it had to grow in soil that distorted and perverted it. Its sole textbook was the Koran. To minds untuned to the melodies of Arabic, this book seemed to be, as it seems to many European minds to-day, a mixture of fine-spirited rhetoric with -- to put it plainly -- formless and unintelligent gabble. Countless converts missed the real thing in it altogether. To that we must ascribe the readiness of the Persian and Indian sections of the faith to join the Shiite schism upon a quarrel that they could at least understand and feel. And to the same attempt to square the new stuff with old prepossessions was due such extravagant theology as presently disputed whether the Koran was and always had been co-existent with God. We should be stupefied by the preposterousness of this idea if we did not recognize in it at once the well-meaning attempt of some learned Christian convert to Islamize his belief that 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'"
"None of the great unifying religious initiators of the world hitherto seems to have been accompanied by any understanding of the vast educational task, the vast work of lucid and varied expostion and intellectual organization involved in its propositions. They all present the same history of a rapid spreading like a little water poured over a great area, and then of superficiality and corruption."
---from, The Outline of History, by H. G. Wells
In light of the above, the stereotype of a Muslim wouldn't seem to be particularly misogynist, explosive laden or militant. Rather, the image to invoke is one of a regular person, possibly well educated but poorly advised by their parents and priests who themselves could rely only on 1400 years of interpretation, translation, cultural incursions and myriad misunderstandings of stories so lost in plot and tone and intent that he is rather unsure about any of it at all. Except the rituals and the prayers, that is. He has that down pat and will defend it to the death, or to some lesser inconvenience.
Rather like stereotypes of any other religion, once you get to know them well enough to speak freely of politics and religion and swap jokes. The only people I ever met who weren't in some way, deep down, unsure about their faiths were the ones who were making a good living at it.
This story of "domestic violence" is about as close as you can get to a self-explanatory example of the meaning of irony. Good thing I left my meter out in the van last night.
If they're not using Islam as a patriarchal tool of misogyny, it's not Islam that is being practiced.
The Koran tells Muslims to tolerate Christians and Jews. For the (minority of) Muslims who do not follow this, will you also say they are not practicing Islam? The problem is not so much with the religion, but with people practicing their religion in whichever suits them, even if it is hypocritical and contradictory. That's why we have so many denominations of Christians, Muslims, and every other religion. It is possible to have non-misogynistic Muslims, just as it is possible to have Christians who eat shrimp and accept homosexuality. You might say that they are not really practicing Christianity, but then almost nobody actually is.
I wonder how much of these misogynous strategies (eg. honour killing and burning the widow at the husband's funeral pyre) are an attempt to control population pressures, along with infanticide. Of course those considered the least valuable to society are the ones that do most of the dying: women and girl babies. This also reduces the potential for further population growth in difficult times.
AnthonyK @ 31:
Try http://www.faithfreedom.org
.
I have met a lower proportion of atheists of Islamic extraction (even among the educated) than of Christian/Jewish/Hindu extraction. I'm not sure exactly why that is. If I had to guess, I'd say that the greater level of intolerance within the mainstream (and prescription of death penalty for apostates) might have something to do with it.
Most of those that I've talked to have been Iranians, but their government actively censors "un-Islamic" sites.
For example, take the "Iranian Infidels" group that used to exist on Orkut (Google's social networking site). The government banned almost all access to Orkut after a while, and a few weeks later, the group had been taken over and changed into some sort of pro-Islamic site (I forget its new name).
Re Mrs. Tilton @105:
According to Wikipedia, I am using what is essentially the PA (and many other states) definition of murder "degrees". You are correct about the NY definition, and since the crime was in NY, is the only one that really matters.
rnb@107
Did anybody say that it didn't? Once again, how does condemming one religion for something absolve all the other ones? There was no "only" in the statement "X is a misogynist religion".
I've often wondered about that speculation (not a theory).
If it were so, it would make more sense to kill the males off. A female can get pregnant, at most, three times every two years. A man can impregnate at least twice a day. Surely it makes more sense to eliminate an excess of males because one male can impregnate 365 women a year (at a minimum).
I am sure a population simulation would be surprising, even if only with guaranteed matches, and the variables of life span, food supply, impregnation rate, and duration of pregnancy.
I have not tested this, even with a crudely wrought simulation, although I am fairly certain someone has done so.
If it were so, it would make more sense to kill the males off. A female can get pregnant, at most, three times every two years. A man can impregnate at least twice a day
nope. other way 'round.
It makes more sense to kill the females off since they are the limiting factor.
I have not tested this, even with a crudely wrought simulation, although I am fairly certain someone has done so.
there are social and cultural issues to consider as well, but you have an excellent opportunity to study high sex ratio bias in China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
It's interesting to note just how many people are happy to use this incident as an example of what is wrong with Islam but so precious few ever stop to think that this is more about what is wrong with men.
Try researching just how often a separation or a divorce ends with the man killing, or trying to kill the woman.
So guys, especially those who have been gung ho in demanding that this incident be a rallying call for dealing with Muslims, how many of you are willing to argue that this should be a rallying call for facing up to and dealing with male violence?
Unless, perhaps, it's not a stereotype, but simply a fact that Islam is a patriarchal religion of misogyny.
False dichotomy.
P.S.
You wrote that the programming was intended to counter stereotypes of Muslims, but then write "perhaps, it's not a stereotype". That's incoherent -- what is not a stereotype? Certainly the notion that, for instance, Muslims are freedom-hating terrorists is a stereotype.
@ Katkinkate # 118:
I doubt it's that forward thinking. It's about control, it's about fear of the "female magic(k)" and it's all about ego.
It's visceral and in the moment, this type of act. It's about a little child in a grown up body, throwing the ultimate temper tantrum.
They find convenient excuses in "Societal Pressures" or "I was abused as a kid" or "My religion says it's okay!", which then turns them into the latest celebrity "The Victim".
To be honest, even thinking about the asinine excuses for domestic violence that I've heard over the years makes me want to vomit.
Abusers abuse because it makes them feel powerful and in control. Period. Abusers lack the self-control and ability to be self-aware of other, normal, people. They allow their own ego, their own self image and base desires, to shape how they will interact with the world, and don't have the intelligence or self-awareness to realize that they have brains with which they can think and reason.
They don't think in terms of population control. They think in terms of possession, property and "I WANT". There is no "higher" reason, because they lack reason altogether.
This happened in Buffalo New York and the asshole confessed? Does this douche bag think this is what ever third world sandbox he crawled out of
Nice racism.
he can get away with this crap?
There's no evidence of that.
Umm, Cruithne? I'm willing to argue that men shouldn't thump on women, and I know a lot of other men who don't thump on women. Actually, it's much better than it used to be, the message has been out there for a long time and it is taking root.
It's not like it takes something like this crime to suddenly make all men take to heart, for the first time, that there is something wrong when unprovoked, offensive violence is used to solve personal problems.
Will spousal abuse (it goes both ways) ever be banished from our lives? Will men and women cease pairing? Rather than shouting a political slogan you might give thought to the dynamics of relationships as well as the failings of an abuser. The two are intertwined and interdependent, and in each individual case there are subtleties that are not apparent to any but the principals and their confidants.
Love is a wonderful thing, but is often confused with one of its lesser manifestations. Too bad we're not better at picking up on that.
Posted by: Valis | February 17, 2009 8:59 AM
Posted by: discipleofkitsch | February 17, 2009 8:07 AM
She deserved it.
I really hope you are being facetious here. If not, you are a very sick individual.
Valis- Yes I was being facetious. Of course that does not mean that I'm not a very sick individual anyway.
Beautiful theory, meet the Minangkabau.
Nice try, but the theory isn't really falsifiable, as Mrs. Tilton illustrates with FN1@95
Ahhh, but PZ, he wasn't a True Muslim™. In fact, he was probably teh Athiest!!11!!
Actually, as seen in this thread, application of the No True Scotsman fallacy goes the other way here -- if one isn't a misogynist pilager from a "third world sandbox", one isn't truly a Muslim.
how many of you are willing to argue that this should be a rallying call for facing up to and dealing with male violence?
I am.
I don't think any reasonable person commenting here thinks that the violence in this act is in any way diminished, or enhanced, by the religion of the perpetrator. The majority of comments do highlight an apparent correlation between abrahamic religions and violent patriarchy - with especial regard to Islam, since there are many recent examples of such misogyny.
My personal view is that men attracted to misogynistic behavior (up to and including extreme physical violence) can find a home in religion that does not readily exist in secular society. Not to deride the fact that some men beat their wives and girlfriends even without religion as a motivator.
The difference is (and many comments spoke to this point) - Islam (and Christianity) supports a man's right to chastise his wife, since a wife is essentially property.
We're back to bronze age goatherder mentality, which has no place in the modern world.
I think it's past time for these fuckwits to embrace enlightenment and universal suffrage, and recognize that we are all people. Short, tall, fat, thin, white, brown, yellow, red, male, female, old, young.
Project much? You might want to read Colugo's post that he was responding to, for context.
Forgot to add that this guy, Hassan, was obviously heavily invested in his faith, which explains why he would dedicate time amd money to defending Islam through his tv station.
Do you also equate countering stereotypes of Jews with defending Judaism?
What?!?! You wouldn't dare say that about musli....oh wait...you did. (Sound of Bill Donohoe's head assploding)
Here, here # 125!
"Actually, it's much better than it used to be, the message has been out there for a long time and it is taking root."
Proof? It's easy to say things like this and believe them because we want it to be true, but that hardly equals reality.
"It's not like it takes something like this crime to suddenly make all men take to heart, for the first time, that there is something wrong when unprovoked, offensive violence is used to solve personal problems."
You're right. Far too many will use it as yet another reason to engage in victim blaming, pretending that women are the real cause of DV, etc. Far too many will pretend it's a one-off thing, not indicative a deeper and bigger problem.
"Will spousal abuse (it goes both ways) ever be banished from our lives?"
It does go both ways. But I hope you're not suggesting its in equal numbers.
"Will men and women cease pairing?"
Are you saying that domestic violence is the logical result of pair-bonding?
"Rather than shouting a political slogan you might give thought to the dynamics of relationships as well as the failings of an abuser."
it's easy for you to pretend it's just a "political slogan" (implying that what Cruithne posted is devoid of truth or meaning) because, most likely, you are privileged enough to be able to ignore the truth of what Cruithne is saying. And, its not at all surprising to see you stepping toward victim-blaming.
What we do know is this - she wanted a divorce and there was already a restraining order out against him, which clearly implies that there was a history of problematic behavior with this guy. She wanted out and he, being a patriarchy-poisoned, controlling, selfish brat, murdered her.
There is NO justification for murdering her (excepting self-defense), regardless of what his excuses may be.
One wonders how his first marriage ended. There were probably red flags.
>>>I think it's past time for these fuckwits to embrace enlightenment and universal suffrage, and recognize that we are all people. Short, tall, fat, thin, white, brown, yellow, red, male, female, old, young.
Tony, if Im interpreting you right, I'm starting to like what I hear.
And how shall we proceed until these fuckwits embrace the enlightenment?
You don't have to believe in the stereotypes to perceive the irony. Man with mission to counter stereotypes acts in extreme stereotyped way.
Re "muslim atheists": if you're interested, check out the British site http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/ with a forum at http://www.councilofexmuslims.com
Well, Endor, the point I would like to make is that there are so many factors involved in any human interaction that it can be hazardous to judge from mere appearance and personal memory. At the same time, there are things that serve as clues in that they are familiar and somewhat consistent, such as the proclivity of some religions to countenance male hegemony.
I am not standing up for the right to be abusive in any situation. I am not calling Cuithne out to debate what has already been established as civilized behavior. What I am saying is that it takes two to tango, and while a man may have a physical advantage, and is expected to exercise it within certain limits, a woman has her own advantages, and is expected to observe similar constraint.
Lest this devolve into an argument about domestic bliss, the pricipal applies to all human relations; that to be as kind and understanding and as long suffering as possible is often conducive to rewarding and maturing relationships. For any party in a conflict to abuse the power that they have to the detriment and cost of another is not fair play. And from an outside and univolved point of view, the facts of any case are not plain. Therefore, boilerplate rhetoric is uncalled for.
Honest inquiry always welcome, unpleasant answers are frequently at hand. What can we do? It's the human condition. I suggest the encouragement of my Dad, who advised me to be wise, kind, and a little bit blind. To make up for that human condition, you know.
I appreciate your point of view and you are welcomed to it.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
Islam is a revealed religion. If one ceases to follow the revelations as described in their guide book, is one still considered what one claims to be? The Koran and the hadith treat women as second-class (if that!) property to be used for house work and sexual gratification. If someone doesn't view women as instructed by the holy book, are they still part of the religion, or is he coming from a more or less cultural perspective as opposed to religious?
I think that people who profess belief should be challenged as often as possible with the disgusting parts of their traditions. If they don't want to be associated with the disgusting nature of it all, they will have to learn to distance themselves from their 'religion.'
Yes, people are whatever religion they identify as. If you think that someone is not a true Muslim because they respect women, then you could just as easily that a Muslim who is violent towards Jews or Christians is not a true Muslim. You could also say that anyone who eats shrimp or who doesn't love their neighbor is not a true Christian. In fact, if you identify a Christian, Jew, or Muslim based on their adherence to their holy books, I doubt you would be able to find and true Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
Excellent posts, Cruithne and Endor. I hope you don't mind if I respond to something ridiculous that CW (#141) just wrote:
"... there are so many factors involved in any human interaction that it can be hazardous to judge from mere appearance and personal memory."
I'll tell you what's hazardous, dude. Making claims like "there are so many factors" and suggesting that we should hesitate for even one second to "judge" situations like this, where it's patently fucking obvious that male violence against women is THE central issue. Care to hazard a guess about who suffers when the gendered nature of "domestic" violence is played down and/or ignored?
Cruithne @125
Very true. But we read the headlines everyday, without selective observation.
Most women have no idea how much men hate them-- and it doesn't matter which god they believe in, it still doesn't help.
Well, Endor, the point I would like to make is that there are so many factors involved in any human interaction that it can be hazardous to judge from mere appearance and personal memory.
See, my problem is that you came up with this after I suggested that men were to blame here but you didn't seem to have a problem when it was Islam being blamed.
One might almost get the impression that it's not until you are being attacked that you begin to notice that something isn't quite fair.
That's OK, we're all guilty of that but that's why those of us who enjoy privilege need to learn to listen to those who don't, because they see what we blind ourselves to.
What I am saying is that it takes two to tango, and while a man may have a physical advantage, and is expected to exercise it within certain limits, a woman has her own advantages, and is expected to observe similar constraint.
Yeah, expect in this two way situation, pretty much all the dying and beatings are a one way street.
Have you any idea of the sheer scale of domestic abuse that happens against women on a daily basis in our civilised western culture?
Compare and contrast that against what happens to men then come back and tell me it's a suitable situation to be compared to a dance of two partners.
It's like telling me Auchwtiz was one big ballroom with many attendees. And if you think I'm being melodramatic by comparing spousal abuse to a holocaust, while youre checking those domestic abuse statistics, have a look at the figures for rape.
These things are and have been at epidemic levels for as far as anyone can remember, and the only time we men tend to notice is when we can blame it on a minority group.
Bingo! It's not just all the different types of Islam, though, it is just about every single offshoot in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic family of religion. (Note: I am not at all talking about followers of these religions but the religions themselves.)
As for the murderer, way to represent your religion! But not at all surprising for a religious leader. Rank hypocrisy is a requirement, isn't it?
Matt, you said:
Well one way is to embrace and educate. Note that is not at all the same as your approach which is [I paraphrase] to leave them all to fester in their own countries until such time you decide they are fitting subjects to enter into your realm.
I really don't think you get it.
I'm inclusive. You're exclusive.
I think we're all people - but some of us are fucked up and need help.
You (appear to) think that we're all people, but that some of us are culturally fucked up and therefore anyone from that culture should be denied any access to our more enlightened culture until they stop fucking up.
In other words - you are still a modern day racist. You just like to put a slightly different sheen to your particular bigotry.
In the context of this topic: The perp was fucked up. That he was fucked up partly as a result of his fucked up religion's teachings is as yet unproven, but is highly suggestive. Regardless, his behavior is no different than any other fucked up misogynistic male who thinks they are "god's gift" and treat women as disposable chattels. And who, in extreme cases, exercise their misogynistic rights violently.
This case in itself does not automatically suggest all moslem men are fucked up misogynists. It is yet another datum in the argument that Islam is, at best, an enabler of misogynistic behaviors. It does not support your thesis that we should close our borders to the entire population. (Note, this incident took place in Buffalo, NY)
I'd imagine that a majority of Muslim men don't decapitate their wives, however, Islam most certainly normalises domestic violence, making these types of horrific acts more likely in my opinion.
Agreed Cruithne.. it's natural for people to avoid assigning blame to themselves. I'm not saying that's moral, but natural.
Endor> you seem to have a fixation with 'privilege'... I grew up in your area.. should I assume that you're from Lackawanna, NF, or the East Side? I'd think most other areas, especially the northen suburbs, carry a bit of privilege with them as well...
@Cruithne, #146:
Yes. At age ten I stood between my parents, a hand in each stomach, pleading that they would let us kids sleep. And I once came within a breath of wreaking mayhem upon another for no other reason than I felt that my rights had been challenged. It shook me. It changed me. I learned that in an argument both could be wrong while still having a reasonable axe to grind.
Oh yes I did. Only you didn't know it because you don't know me.
Epidemic levels? While I agree that even one case is too much, I also know that there is only so much that I can expect. Abuse is not a faucet that one can turn off at will.
Will you accept the proposition that more is known about, and spoken about and done about spousal abuse today than at any time in recent memory? If so, you and I agree.
Do you wish that the situation was better? So do I. And it will, assuming that the effort that is already in progress continues.
Again, in all questions of human conflict it is better to be ignorant and silent than privy to intimate details and loathe to speak.
And by the way; each and every one of us is a minority. It is not a special dispensation for any group. The amazing potential of being human is to take all of these minorities (individuals) and find not the most patronizing attitude with which to regard it, but the most roundly satisfying way to make it succeed. And that means everybody, whether I like it or not. And that's a lot of work. Good thing we've got a few million years left to practice. (if the good lord's willin' and the creek don't rise)
Peace.
>>>leave them all to fester in their own countries until such time you decide.
Nah, I said 'we'. This is a democracy. I need you, the majority of you anyway.
>>>but that some of us are culturally fucked up and therefore anyone from that culture should be denied any access to our more enlightened culture until they stop fucking up.
Again, no. Though I am glad, no ecstatic, you think we have an enlightened culture. More on that in a minute. I think every Mosque in the world should be given a copy of The Wealth of Nations, U.S. Constitution, and everything Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. Once read and properly digested, in other words, liberalized and secularized and on firm ground with freedom, moslems can come back.
>>>This case in itself does not automatically suggest all moslem men are fucked up misogynists.
Dont believe this and never said so. What I do believe is that our enlightened culture is in danger from unenlightened moslems, and others. You value our culture, you said so.
Please, please read this link. It is not a racist screed, I swear. Blows me away in anything I could ever help to merely regurgitate, much less articulate in my own words.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html
Another thing to consider is what happens to the murder victim now. Has anyone here been to a religious funeral where men and women were treated separately and unequally? You don't see it usually at Protestant Christian funerals, but if you think the mistreatment of women by these patriarchal religions stops when a woman dies, think again.
If people think violence is just a problem of men, I think they need to do some volunteer work with Parents' Anonymous, or at a childrens' shelter like I did.
Remember when the Muslims invented the guillotine? Oh, that wasn't them? Nevermind.
What jumps out at me about this story is that a couple of months ago a woman shot her chronically abusive husband to death and the police investigators found the makings of a dirty bomb, literature on how to make one, and documents linking him to a dangerous extremist group in their home.
And only the local news station has reported on this story up until now because the mofo in question was a white man.
Officials were quick to say, "The public was never in danger." Do you think it would have been the same if the guy had been of Arab descent, or a Muslim? Seriously, no national media coverage for a guy who was making a dirty bomb at home?
What about the guy who made the ricin and had it in his hotel room in Vegas? No big deal, because he's white.
What about the smile-face bomber? Same. White.
What about the American soldier who cut off his wife's lover head in Germany, stuffed it in a duffel bag, and took it to the hospital to show his wife right after she gave birth? Was he Muslim? He was not.
How many people have been decapitated in the Mexican drugs wars over the last couple years?"
There is no talk of "honor killing" in this story. It's domestic violence, which we have plenty of around here. For Pete's sake, there was no such crime as "marital rape" in the United States thirty years ago.
Snarla,
>>>Seriously, no national media coverage for a guy who was making a dirty bomb at home?
and how did you hear about it?
Well, that certainly redlined my Irony meter. Amazing what these fuckers get up to.
Sven DiMilo @72
You're absolutely right, and I apologize for my unthinking attempt at humor. The desert is indeed a beautiful place.
We are deeply saddened and outraged by this brutal premeditated murder. Hopefully we can keep this horrible crime against women from occurring again. We are a group of friends that know and worked with a young woman named Joy Loftin while she was employed at the Vanderbilt YMCA here in New York City. During the length of her employment, several extremely disturbing incidents occurred that cause us to be concerned and call into question the motives and the integrity of Shan Colorado Finnerty, Hortensia Colorado, and Elvira Colorado.
On several occasions, Joy came to work with visible bruises on her neck and arms. She eventually explained to us that Shan had punched, beaten, and choked her and she asked us for help. As wardens for the community, we tried to place Joy in women’s shelters around the city in an effort to mitigate the abuse. However, at the urging of Shan’s mother and aunt, Hortensia and Elvira, she returned to their apartment and refused to press criminal charges against Shan Colorado Finnerty. The abuse continued and one day, she came to work very early, visibly distressed and crying, with more bruises and abrasions. She said that Shan had verbally abused and beaten her once again; that she wanted to return to California, and that she was going to quit her job and reunite with her family. She tendered her resignation later that week. Out of concern for her safety and in an effort to find out what happened to her, we requested an officer from the domestic violence unit of the 5th Precinct conduct a welfare check at their home on Kenmare Street. However the officer was unable to find anyone at the apartment, and therefore could not verify that Joy was safe. We realize that she is suffering from battered women’s syndrome and may be unable to help herself due to the isolationist environment that the Colorados have formed around her. Abusive men are often enabled by their family, while the victim is persuaded to believe the abuse is her fault, and the pattern of emotional and physical trauma continues. Taking into consideration what has happened to Joy Loftin, it is especially deceitful that their display "Altar: El Llanto De La Resistancia" at the American Indian Community House was in part dedicated to victims of domestic violence.
In light of these events, we are dismayed, disappointed, and outraged to know that members of the American Indian Community would commit, condone, and perpetuate domestic abuse and violence, while simultaneously conducting workshops, writing and performing plays, and displaying works and art that would have the public and those who support them believe otherwise. It is a vulgar and offensive misrepresentation of American Indian Culture, and further support of Coatlicue Theater, Hortensia Colorado, Elvira Colorado, Shan Colorado Finnerty and their work is tantamount to supporting domestic abuse and violence. Considering their duplicitous behavior, having them represent American Indian Culture is an insult to the dignity of American Indians and an affront to human beings.
We therefore will not attend nor support any Coatlicue Theater productions or events where they will be featured. We will be encouraging others that might consider attending, participating, or funding them to do the same. Our actions are warranted, and to be associated with the aforementioned individuals and Coatlicue Theater would be equivalent to enabling and contributing to such offensive behaviour. We are urging everyone to reevaluate their support of Coatlicue Theatre and the Colorados, and question the individuals concerned. Until the responsible individuals are held accountable and measures are taken to verify that the abuse is no longer occurring, we will continue with our boycott of Coatlicue Theatre and we will strongly urge others to do the same.
Matt, I heard about it through a Google alert. The Bangor news is the only news outlet covering it.
"If people think violence is just a problem of men, I think they need to do some volunteer work with Parents' Anonymous, or at a childrens' shelter like I did." (rnb #154)
No one thinks that violence is "just" a problem of men, but it is overwhelmingly a problem of men, especially intimate partner violence. As for child abuse, it amazes me that I have to say this, but the fact is that women perform the vast majority of the childcare in this country. So it's no surprise that women are overrepresented in child abuse statistics (compared with other kinds of abuse).
... Oh, and CW (#151), Cruithne wasn't asking about your personal experience with domestic abuse. He was asking if you were familiar with actual statistics on it. Apparently, the answer is no, since you question his characterization of the problem as epidemic. Lastly, your attempt to dismiss out of hand the concept of a "minority group" betrays your privilege, dude. Oppression based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. is real whether you've experienced it yourself or not. Again, statistics.
Coming from you, I'm shocked and disappointed by this post.
You of all people should know misogyny knows no religion. I'm as often disgusted by the misogyny of self described Atheists and Skeptics as anyone.
As you're about to discover, Mr. Wrott (actually, as you probably have, and I'll discover once I return to the comment I'm responding to and scroll down), what you actually said or meant is completely irrelevant. Endor's response is riddled with "red flags" of the nauseatingly common pattern in some threads here, where a person has a justified complaint against some dysfunctional attitude or cultural faction - in this case, The Privileged Male, Subtype Apologist For Violence (TM) - and you've inadvertently said something that reminds them of that attitude or the viewpoint of that faction. You will now be inundated in a barrage of angry ravings against The Privileged Male, Subtype Apologist For Violence (TM), which are directed at you and which will take absolutely no cognizance of any explanations of your actual views or future protests on your part. Good luck.
Domestic violence isn't an epidemic, that word has a very specific meaning which is not met by the statistics of violent crime. If you looked at the data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics you would see that the trend is towards less domestic violence not more. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm Any domestic violence is unacceptable but progress has been, and will be made to reduce the number of people, women and men, that are victimized each year.
Thank you, Azkyroth. I was thinking that maybe I had stuck someone in the eye and was preparing to respond to #161 along the lines of "look, this is what I did say."
You have warned me of de Tar Baby and I'm grateful for it.
Nonetheless, I'll take a final whack before sleep.
Yes, #161 and Cruithne, I am aware of the statistics. One can hardly not be aware of them. I use my own experience as testimony since it is what I have. Take it or leave it. It is my usual form of honesty.
I will admit (not self--deprecatingly) that I am privileged to the same degree that you and any other functional human is: two arms, hands, legs, feet, ears, eyes and brain all wired together and working as a piece. No more or less than you.
The crime which occasioned this post by PZ probably happened just like the suspect says. He did it, the slimy bastard, and I offer no excuse for his actions or the actions of any thug, male or female.
It is an unfortunate truism that whenever something like this happens the "men are brutes" crowd is never far behind. I agree to the extent that anyone can be a brute independent of age. gender, culture, religion, party affiliation or the opinions of onlookers.
In an effort to counter the knee-jerk reaction that is inevitable in cases like this I made an attempt to point out another truism, that to pass judgment on a case involving strangers without knowledge of the facts germane to the particular case is to parade prejudice for everyone to see.
Nothing is new.
Good night.
Um, for those of you who are asking why this is only second degree murder, I had that reaction as well. But there's a perfectly clear explanation in Wikipedia of what counts as first degree murder and what counts as second degree murder under New York law. Don't assume that these terms have the same meaning in every jurisdiction. Under New York law, second degree murder is pretty bad. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_Sta…
This was not an honor killing. I wish that people would stop perpetuating that erroneous speculation. MO Hassan was married before to a non-Muslim woman, and had two children with her as well. He divorced the first wife without killing her. He was not a religious Muslim. Bridges TV was nothing more to him than an opportunity to make money. He did not fast or pray as is required in the religion. HE often said that he did not miss Pakistan, or wish to visit. He was very Americanized. What this was is an example of is his rage, and domestic abuse... not an "honor killing." I know all this becuase I used to work there. Leave the religion of Islam out of it.
Another employee Nancy Sanders, the television station's news director for over two years, said "I just do not feel it was an honor killing. I think it was domestic abuse that got out of control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/muzzammil-hassan-muslim-t_n_16…
The guy was a narcissist; he didn't believe in anything bigger than his own selfish desires.
It is an unfortunate truism that whenever something like this happens the "men are brutes" crowd is never far behind. I agree to the extent that anyone can be a brute independent of age. gender, culture, religion, party affiliation or the opinions of onlookers.
Sorry but I think you're not getting the point, nor are you aware of the irony in the above paragraph, considering the motivation for this thread in the first place.
What this man did is most definitely NOT reflective of Islam, nor is such an action approved in Islam. So-called "honor killings" have no place in Islam - even though it seems that whenever such an event occurs it is invariably a Muslim man who murders his wife, daughter, sister, cousin or even mother.
Qur'an 5:32 "[...] We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors."
Just because a Muslim does something does not mean that he represents Islam or other Muslims. Even a "respected" Shia cleric like Ayatollah Khomeni taught things that are haram or "unlawful" in Islam, such as his writing in which he declares that it is lawful for a man to have sex with an infant! Just because someone claims to be a Muslim does not mean that he really knows or cares anything about Islam.
Jonathon> I call BS on that one. According to the Hadith it is unlawful for the woman to initiate a divorce, numerous sura explicitly state that one is not a believer while commiting an act that transgresses the law, and advocates killing apostates. Perhaps the punishment for attempting to divorce your husband under Sharia law is merely lashes?
If you wish to find a verse that supports any point of view, you can, but that doesn't mean that it explains the general attitude of the religion as a whole. You're commiting the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: these men are certainly disturbed, but they find justification in the writings of your epileptic, barbarous merchant. But that's ok with you, because it isn't really lying if you're talking to a kafir, right?
There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and while, like Christians, their belief system may be entirely wrong, the vast majority of Muslims do not behead their wives and the vast majority of them want the same thing the vast majority of other people do: peace, love and a good life in our brief time on this planet.
You really are a nasty little bigot, P.Z. It's shocking that your bilge is promoted on a so-called science site.
davidm> You're conflating truth with bigotry. Definition of patriarchal
ie, it's run by a bunch of old men.
misogynistic
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because men spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those among you who fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” Sura 4:34
“...Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty and wise.” Sura 2:228
So which of PZ's statements is demonstrably false?
Try googling before you get all offended... noone is implying that this occurred solely because the man was Muslim, but the culture in which he was raised certainly helped.
#95: Well, I'm glad to hear it. I hope the word gets out to the people who protested the entry of Geert Wilders into Britain, or the 4000 people who wanted the editors of "The Statesman" to be arrested and/or executed, or the Imam of Spain who wrote a book on how to beat women without leaving marks that could be used as evidence in court...
In short, you know, reigning in the extremists.
Without going back to count them, I was shocked at the number of apparently clear headed readers who wrote, without attribution, that, most probably, Atheists are in the wife murdering business, too, apparently as a part of their deep religious belief in Evolution. How about even a scintilla of evidence to that accusation. Are those writers agents of the Islamic Empire or are they secret agnostics who are fearful of ever saying anything reasonable about Atheists?