Salam waleykum, readers. Last week, we brought you daily updates on the Muslim community’s response to Aasiya Hassan’s murder.
This week, we’re bringing you our own thoughts on the coverage surrounding the case.
Media coverage around Aasiya Hassan’s murder has been slow but steady in its speculation. Much of it has been Islamophobic, throwing around sound bytes from unqualified spokespeople (looking in Brigitte Gabriel’s direction), making assumptions about Islamic law, and generalizing about the Muslim community.
Faith: The media coverage of Aasiya Hassan’s murder brings up two important issues for me. The first is the connection of Islam to any criminal behavior that is done by a Muslim. This has been happening more frequently whenever a Muslim commits a crime and it is a disturbing trend. Islam does not make people become criminals. No religion makes a person become a criminal. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but Islam does not condone or support domestic violence or criminal acts.
Yusra: In writing about Aasiya Zubair (may Allah rest her soul), any good journalist will ask, “what makes this different that any other domestic violence case?” Muzzammil was a public figure who promoted himself as a leader of the Muslim community, which in turn honored him with awards and cash donations. He was seen as a spokesperson for Islam, and founded Bridges TV with the intention of dispelling stereotypes about Muslims. We cannot blame the media for jumping on the irony here. Muzzammil’s faith and profession make this story unique; any story that does not mention this is incomplete.
Sobia: What strikes me most about the coverage of this tragedy is all the speculation regarding the case. No one has stated Hassan’s reasons – not even him. Neither he nor the authorities have stated anything about Islam or Shari’ah, yet we have media outlets basically fabricating his motives to (and to me, this is the sickest part) sensationalize the tragic murder of a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister because she is Muslim. Had the victim been a White, non-Muslim woman, I have a strong sense she would have been afforded a little more respect.
Krista: Of course this murder has nothing to do with Islam, and therefore, as Muslims, we should not have to explain it. And yet, even as I write that, I know that there is a wholly different Islam being talked about in the news, an Islam of violence and misogyny, and that this is the Islam that we are being asked to justify or to distance ourselves from. So, as I sift through the stories and the analysis, the evidence and the misinformation – all the while aware that there is much about the story that we still do not know – I find my religion on trial, often condemned even before we have a chance to speak up. The language used in a lot of the coverage of this murder, pretty much from the beginning, has served to accuse Islam and Muslims as a group for the violence that occurred, and to suggest that Muslims are people that the rest of Americans should fear.
Even more troubling are the ways that the word “terrorist” is popping up in some articles. This horrific instance of domestic violence has suddenly been turned into a “terrorist” act – in other words, Muzzammil Hassan is portrayed as not only a threat to his wife, but also a potential threat to all people around him. Again, there is nothing that points to this case being anything other than a shocking and brutal form of domestic violence. However, the language used, with “Shari’ah” to implicate all Muslims, and “terrorist” to suggest a broader threat, implies that all Muslims (and men in particular) are potentially violent, that spousal abuse and murder are acceptable in our religious worldviews, and that our inherent violence and support of violence make Muslims a danger to our broader communities.
Sobia: The fact that this poor woman was beaten by her husband regularly and lived in such fear for so many years of her life are being completely forgotten in the efforts of Islamophobes to use her death to push their agenda.
Especially troubling are the constant references to Shari’ah law and honor killings.
Yusra: Blaming Muzzammil’s faith for the murder or somehow hinting that Islam has anything to do with it is a forceful injection of drama that belongs in trashy tabloids not credible newspapers. Yet so many media outlets went ahead and labeled the beheading an honor killing or injected Shari’ah in their stories, just so they could be cool and show they knew what Shari’ah was. This sort of ignorance and libelous editorializing by journalists is commonplace whenever they write about Islam and Muslims.
Sobia: The Toronto Star not only attributed this murder to Shari’ah law without any evidence (extremely poor journalism in my books), but they also quoted an ex-Muslim, now evangelical Christian, on what Islamic law is. This would be equivalent to quoting Richard Dawkins, world famous atheist who was raised Christian, on Christian laws.
Faith: Every time an article or news story is done on Muzzammil Hassan, Shari’ah and “honor killings” are mentioned. It’s so disappointing, because it makes me believe that the media really doesn’t care about accuracy when it comes to any story about Muslims. Aasiya’s murder had nothing to do with Shari’ah, nothing. I honestly feel that Shari’ah is simply being mentioned to make the story more sensational than it already is. Additionally, Aasiya’s murder had nothing to do with “honor killings”.
Fatemeh: As I wrote in my post on ReligionDispatches, I believe that “honor killing” is the wrong word to describe what happened to Aasiya Hassan:
However, there is overwhelming evidence that the “honor killing” label is an incorrect one: Aasiya was Muzzammil Hassan’s third wife after two divorces, she suffered a history of abuse during her marriage to him, and his first wife’s cousin has spoken out about the domestic abuse that she faced while married to him. She had filed for divorce from him a week before her murder, yet she still worked in the same television station he did (they co-founded the network). As many domestic violence statistics show, women in abusive relationships are most in danger when they attempt to leave the relationship, and Aasiya had not only filed for divorce, but also gotten a protective order against her husband.
Not to mention that, if divorcing Muzzammil is considered dishonorable and is the reason he allegedly murdered her, why didn’t he also kill his first two wives, both of whom divorced him for spousal abuse?
Krista: We had an interesting discussion in the comments section of an MMW post a little while ago on whether “honour killing” was even an appropriate or useful phrase to use. I’m still uncomfortable with it, but the argument for using the phrase that I found most compelling was the idea that it conveys a very specific set of circumstances (the issue of “honour,” often the involvement of several family members in the murder, etc.), and that some argue that it is necessary to have specific language to address the crimes that happen in these circumstances. Again, that point is debatable, but the reason I bring it up is that, from what I have seen, nothing about this case fits that description. If it is indeed useful to use the term “honour killing,” shouldn’t it be reserved for situations that actually fall under its definition? And shouldn’t that definition be more concrete than “domestic violence committed by a Muslim”? At this point, we have no evidence that this murder had anything to do with an “honour killing.” Naming it in that way undermines the purpose of “honour killing” as a meaningful term, and needlessly (and dangerously) attaches cultural and religious connotations to this case.
Constant references to “beheading” also color the circumstances in a different light. When someone’s head is removed in a murder, news reports refer to it using the word “decapitation”. It’s a pretty good bet that the Associated Press Style Book (referred to on the Associated Press’ website as “the journalist’s Bible”) would advocate as such. Yet, many outlets (including the Associated Press, disappointingly) refer to her murder as a “beheading.”
Sobia: Referring to this murder as a beheading, as opposed to as a decapitation which would be more accurate, brings forth connotations of some sort of judicial ruling, as opposed to a vicious hate crime against a woman.
Fatemeh: “Beheading” also conjures up some seriously Orientalist stereotypes, as if he’d murdered her using a giant scimitar (which is exactly what Bill Maher seems to think, despite the fact that no details about the case, including the murder weapon, have been released).
Krista: The language around “beheading” also carries connotations of a judicial sentence imposed on Ms. Hassan. Again, nothing that has been published in any of the news reports has given any indication that this was some kind of religiously-imposed punishment, or that Ms. Hassan had been said to violate any Islamic law. Even the most extreme and violent (mis)interpretations of Shari’ah don’t allow for beheading a woman who divorces her husband. The way that Shari’ah gets talked about in relation to this case – usually without a direct link; the word just gets thrown in there to imply a connection – is really worrying, and puts the blame on Islam for something that would be clearly condemned within an Islamic legal framework.
Last Friday, imams across the United States discussed domestic violence in the Muslim community in an effort to make sure that no other women suffer the way Aasiya did. Tinting the story with references to Islam, Shari’ah, and honor killing obscure the real truths of the situation, and make the murder of a wife by her husband seem like something that only happens to Muslims.
Faith: The second issue that this tragedy brings up is the Muslim community’s complicity in domestic violence against women. Muzzammil Hassan was supported by various Muslim organizations in the U.S., including ISNA, despite the fact that all three of his wives left him because of domestic violence. He had a reputation for being violent and abusive, yet he still managed to gain a platform at major Muslim conventions throughout the U.S. because he founded Bridges TV. Abusers should not gain the support of Muslims, yet too often we are silent when they are among our mist. I hope that this tragedy really makes Muslims take a cold, hard look at how we treat domestic violence and abusers in our community. Not just speak about the issue, but actually stop embracing and sheltering abusers and take actions to help victims of abuse.
Sobia: What heartens me is the response from mainstream Muslims to fight intimate partner violence. Just as after the tragic Aqsa Parvez murder, this time again mosques across North America delivered khutbahs against domestic violence, explaining how un-Islamic such terrible actions are. It appears the Muslim community is stepping up to the plate in North America and, as such, showing Aasiya Hassan respect.
Fatemeh: There is no doubt in my mind that this is a case of domestic violence. Aasiya isn’t the first person to be decapitated in this country (do a Google News search for “decapitation” if you don’t believe me), but I hope she’ll be the last, enshallah.
Domestic violence affects Muslims just as much as it affects other communities, and we have to face it. And we are: it’s reassuring to see how Muslim Americans came together after this horrific murder and turned it into something positive by raising awareness in our communities, attempting to ensure that no other woman faces this same fate. As tragic as it is, Aasiya’s murder may have saved more women than her work as a Bridges TV executive, even as her husband’s alleged actions have hurt the community more than his work at Bridges TV helped.
Tags: Aasiya Hassan, Islamophobia, media, racism
“Naming it in that way undermines the purpose of “honour killing” as a meaningful term, and needlessly (and dangerously) attaches cultural and religious connotations to this case.”
I completely agree — I do think that honor killings is a useful term, but there is insufficient evidence in this case to label it honor killing. Not all domestic abuse cases among Muslims are honor killings.
That being said, this post really disheartened me. I really respect you guys and love this blog, but you spent so much time discussing how this case in no way reflects on Islam that you failed to adequately address how the Muslim community can act to prevent such crimes. I know you don’t mean to defend this man, but sometimes that’s the way it sounds.
For example, in other words, Krista said: “…Muzzammil Hassan is portrayed as not only a threat to his wife, but also a potential threat to all people around him. Again, there is nothing that points to this case being anything other than a shocking and brutal form of domestic violence.” I don’t think this guy is a terrorist, but OF COURSE he’s a threat to everyone around him — do you seriously think he’s not? It’s JUST a case of domestic violence?
I completely agree with Yusra’s first comment. This man was a “leader” in his Muslim community. By spending all our energy being defensive, saying over and over again “this isn’t Islam, this isn’t us, this has nothing to do with Muslims” we are denying the fact that violence DOES occur in the Muslim community, just like everywhere else, and we have DUTY to protect survivors and potential victims and rehabilitate perpetrators.
I completely agree that there is tons of racism and Islamaphobia out there, and we should counteract that. But by denying that this case has anything to do with the Muslim community we aren’t helping anyone. It just gives ammunition to the people that are racist, who can then say that the Muslim community isn’t addressing the problem of domestic violence, and at the same time we also work to silence potential victims. My fear is that less women will come forward for fear of fanning the flames of Islamaphobia.
The real tragedy of this case was that Ms. Hassan tried several times to get help. Who failed? Where did they fail? Did the fear of demonizing the Muslim community work to silence women? These are the questions we should be asking.
As-salamu ‘alaikom wa rahmatullahi wa barakatoh,
“it’s reassuring to see how Muslim Americans came together after this horrific murder and turned it into something positive by raising awareness in our communities, attempting to ensure that no other woman faces this same fate.”
To be completely honest I feel it is tremendously naive to believe it even reasonably plausible that the upswell of vocal anti-domestic violence sentiments among the American Muslim community will last. I hope. But I do not anticipate.
Rochelle, I disagree with your assertion that we are defending Muzzammil Hassan (unintentionally or otherwise) by analyzing media coverage around the case. Our site’s purpose is to deconstruct/analyze media coverage. Though we have a resources page that aims to provide Muslim women with access to sites that can help them with domestic violence issues (among others), we are not a domestic violence site.
You and Faith bring up a good point, however, when you mention that domestic violence is an issue that the Muslim community needs to face. I agree with this. Last Friday, mosques across the country held special khutbahs to specifically deal with domestic violence issues (the impermissibility of such violence in Islam, etc.), and the concentrated national effort displayed was amazing, in my opinion. The first step is education and awareness-raising: by sweeping DV problems under the rug in Muslim communities, we deny that we have them. Owning up to the fact that DV affects Muslim communities just like any other is the first step to dealing with them, and I think Faith’s point about refusing to support or shelter abusers is an idea that should definitely be put into practice. But remember that none of us are trained (as far as I know) in DV activism; on this site, we are media critics.
The only question you bring up that I feel we should have answered is: Did the fear of demonizing the Muslim community work to silence women? I would agree that it did and does still. This is one reason that Muslim community has tried so tirelessly to highlight this case as domestic violence, which spans all communities. If women aren’t afraid that their situations will hurt their faith’s image (and thus their images—no one wants others to blame their situation on their faith, which is sometimes one’s only refuge), they will be more likely to speak out. And I think that Aasiya’s murder, the resulting coverage, and the khutbahs are a wake-up call. I pray that this case has set in motion a momentum within the Muslim community that can and will result in more women gaining awareness, refusing to accept their mistreatment or that of others, and more women pressing for their rights and the rights of their sisters.
Though Michelle’s comment reminds me of the thousands of DV shelter, networks, and organizations that exist in the U.S.; despite all these, domestic violence is still rampant among all communities in the U.S. So though I won’t stop working, consciousness-raising, and praying, I will try and keep my feet on the ground.
What do the rest of you think? Did/does the fear of demonizing the Muslim community work to silence women?
“Did/does the fear of demonizing the Muslim community work to silence women?”
Of course it does. As you mentioned Fatemeh, for so many Muslim women it is their faith to which they turn in times of need. But if that same source of comfort and strength is demonized by others when one turns for help then many Muslim women will not turn outside their own community for help. And if their own community does not have the proper resources set up to help them then we have a serious issue.
For Aasiya it was not just the Muslim community who let her down – it was also the system. The police, as is so often the case, did not do enough to help her either.
I will second Fatemeh’s reminder that we are not a DV/IPV site. We critique media representations that involve Muslim women. If we were to get into the business of advising the Muslim community on how they should conduct themselves we would lose our focus, because indeed we could do that for many of our pieces. Such endeavors should take place in another arena and another space.
@ Rochelle: In terms of my comment on the use of the word “terrorist,” I guess I didn’t explain myself properly. As you point out, this man’s violence is likely not only confined to his wife, and someone capable of committing such a horrendous murder may indeed be a threat to more people than his immediate family.
However, what I was trying to point out is that the “terrorist” designation paints him as a specific kind of threat to a MUCH wider audience than most domestic violence suspects are ever accused of. It portrays him as a potential threat to his entire community, city, or even his country (not to mention to things like “freedom and democracy,” which are, apparently, what terrorists hate most.) I can’t think of any other situation of domestic violence where the perpetrator is suddenly assumed to pose a threat to the community on the scale of what “terrorist” implies in today’s media discourses. Maybe I should have been clearer that I didn’t mean that he wasn’t potentially dangerous to other people around him, but my main point was that the extent and scope of violence implied by the word “terrorist” makes this a really absurd and inappropriate connection to try to make here.
I’m sorry that this post disheartened you. The reason that we “spent so much time discussing how this case in no way reflects on Islam” is that, as Fatemeh said, we are a blog focused on media representations, and not on what Muslim communities need to be doing about particular social issues. Media portrayals of this case have been focused on linking it to Islam, which was why we needed to spend so much time challenging some of the ways that this link was made.
The series of statements that we profiled on MMW throughout last week was one way of highlighting some of the work that other Muslim organisations are doing, including some of the more direct work of challenging domestic violence within Muslim communities and of questioning what kind of resources might have been able to help Ms. Hassan, and why she was unable to access them. I’m also glad that we featured those statements so prominently for so long before going into our own analysis of the coverage, because I do agree that it would be problematic if we only cared about the media coverage and not about the many other issues that this incident has raised for our communities. However, since those issues aren’t our specialty, I think it made more sense to focus on the analysis that we’re good at, and to allow other people to talk about some of those other topics.
@ ROchelle, of course it’s important to connect the fact that Muzammil was an outspoken Muslim, and the nature of his horrendous act unfortunately has to be looked at in that context. However, that is every different than saying his faith is in any way responsible for it.Of course violence, esp domestic violence occurs in the Muslim community, but when we defend Islam it’s because we are concerned that isolated acts of violence are being portrayed as a part of our faith, as something we as Muslims should take responsibility for, and it is ridiculous to hold Muslims to that standard when Christians or Jews or anyone else never are when acts of violence are committed by members of their community. This should be obvious to anyone, esp member of the press, but as we have pointed out, unfortunately that is not the case.
Salaam Alaikum,
I just find it ironic that certain sections of the media are so quick to put out the “Violent Muslim Man” soundbite in the same week that the Rihanna and Chris Brown story broke.
I have not seen a single Muslim defend or try to justify Muzammil’s actions, but in the comment sections of sites as diverse as MTV and HuffPo, you can find people justifying Brown’s actions, even after the photo was leaked.
Before anyone says the violence in that case was not as severe, from the information available, it appears Rihanna sustained several blows to the head, which could have easily killed her.
Domestic violence spares no one and those who paint it as a Muslim only issue are not benefiting anyone, except their own bank balances.
[...] “honor killing” despite scant public evidence that Mr. Hassan characterized it as such. Sobia, Krista and Fatemah over at Muslimah Media Watch point out that the language used by most news outlets does not describe the murder as a [...]
I’ve been seeing in news stories and letters and blogs about Aasiya’s murder, more and more often, references to and even quotations of surah 4:34, where it is said that husbands can beat their wives if they fear disobedience.
Aasiya’s husband beat three wives without worrying about anything, while receiving accolades and money and respect from the community. People are seeing this and 4:34 quoted in the papers, and adding it up. Then they are making the jump from beatings to the video beheadings of all those people just because of the way he allegedly killed her. The conclusion isn’t supported by what few facts are available about Ms. Hassan’s murder (nor is the honor-killing accusation, I think), but however simplistic and wrong, that is what is happening.
Pretending 4:34 doesn’t exist, and that there aren’t dozens and dozens of articles and videos showing imams explaining how to beat your wife, doesn’t seem to work anymore. I mean, how do you respond when it’s brought up? The toothpick or the feather or the “go away from her” interpretations? People are looking up the Quran and the videos — about beating and beheading both — on the Internet for themselves now, and there’s no good pathway out that I can see. When someone says “domestic violence isn’t allowed in Islam” they come right back and say “Sure it is. This part of the Quran says so right here, and so does this big popular Arabic-speaking imam expert and this one and this one, so who’s right? You or the guys who spent their whole lives studying your religion?”
And if it’s not Islamic, then why should a beaten woman fear demonizing the community by seeking help anyway? The Catholics weren’t afraid to demonize their church by seeking justice for children abused by their priests. And they didn’t ask their good priests to do it for them in their church speeches or whatever, because everybody knew that abusing little children isn’t part of their faith. They didn’t need priests to explain that to them. Instead the hurt people and their friends went after the enablers and the hiders, even if they were powerful priests, and they punished them and the whole church as much as they could, publicly and financially. They didn’t call talking about the issue “Catholicophobia” and call people racists and bigots for talking about the problem, even if they weren’t Catholics.
Thank you ladies for all the resources and all the updates and coverages across the many blogs responding to Aasiya Hassan’s (may Allah rest her soul) murder.
Safiya Outline makes an ironic and great point, it’s a sad day to be a women in North American when my fellow citizens justify domestic abuse as in the case with Chris Brown supporters and fans and also with “the fear of demonizing the Muslim community works to silence women”. It does silence women since Muslim women in the media are used as religious and ethnic symbols of their society. To an extend I also feel my Muslim community also puts pressures on Muslim women to assume the role of religious markers which also causes some silence.
I’m being let down and I can’t trust anybody, I can not even trust my Mosque/Muslim community because men “who are known to be violent and abusive still managed to gain a platform at major Muslim conventions throughout the U.S. because he founded Bridges TV.”
Why did we let a man like Mr. Hassan be a leader in our community and support him when he was abusive and violent to (Muslim) women? Why did we welcome him with open arms at Muslim conventions. Why did the Muslim community defend his actions than by turning a blind eye? Was it because he had power and brought money and was that more important? Margari Aziza very well points this out in her blog “How Lack of Accountability (in our community) led to a Rise of a Monster” (http://azizaizmargari.wordpress.com/).
When such men are in positions of leadership in Muslim communities it will work to silence me and other women.
Thanks ISNA for letting it be understand, that “known” abusers are not welcome in your Muslim community conventions nor will they be given influential and respected positions, but in this case your a little late!
Rayhana, the appearances of Surah 4:34 in the mainstream media is as troubling as the appearance of “Shari’ah” and “honor killing.” There isn’t really a place for it, but it’s being injected to justify framing this as an Islamic issue rather than a domestic violence issue. Hassan never used any of the above, including Surah 4:34, to condone his behavior.
While there are plenty of (erroneous) articles on the permissibility of wife beating, there are also plenty on the impermissibility of domestic violence. There are sermons on YouTube, as well. There is not an absence of scholarly material from both sides on this; whether a researcher is truly interested in understanding or is simply seeking to confirm his/her own prejudices is at the heart of what s/he finds. Because this isn’t the forum for debating about religious teachings, I’m not going to pursue it further.
I want to correct you about the Catholic church: Catholics were afraid to speak out about the issue, as was the Vatican. The fact that some people didn’t speak out about their molestation by priests until decades later is proof enough that fear, social pressure, and intimidation were put upon the survivors of molestation in that community just like in any other. Many priests who were accused were given slight warnings, transferred to other parishes without punishment, or had their heinous misdeeds otherwise swept under the rug. The Vatican eventually caved to severe international pressure to speak out against the molestations and do something about them.
The difference between the Catholic issue and the Muslim issue is that Islam is racialized in Western media to be a “brown (Middle Eastern) people” thing, and there are often serious overtones of Orientalism, including exoticism, barbarism, and everybody’s favorite term, “backward.” That’s how race & bigotry come into the issue.
The idea of women suing imams/shaykhs who advise them to keep quiet about domestic violence for aiding and abetting their abusers is a great one. I think we should take a page from the Catholics, here; lawsuits may be a way to help weed out those who erroneously condone and support DV.
Fatemah,
Very well put about the Catholics. I know a lady who is involved in SNAP, the organization that is trying to punish all the wrongdoing priests and the priests and the heirarchy that tried to hide them. You are absolutely right in that for a long time the abuse was hidden, until a few brave people said “enough.” It seems though that it was only the Americans who really pushed the issue forward, and the punishments were accomplished within the framework of American law.
I also know that for many years in the United States, there was a tremendous bigotry against Catholics — as those “dirty, stupid Irish and Polish immigrants, obeying the Pope and not secular laws and taking jobs from the rest of us and breeding with their fat, illiterate women and their stinky cooking.” It’s the same ugly, repeated stupidity. Signs on parks and factories like “No Irish or Dogs,” “Polish need not apply.” Muslims aren’t the first to see this, as I’m sure Hispanic immigrants would be able to describe. Doesn’t make things any better. Misery should not have company.
I will look into the defenses against 4:34 as condoning wife-beating. It is difficult for me to see how it could be done, considering how clear the surah is, at least in translation, the existence of sahih hadith that seem to confirm it, and how enthusiastically it seems to be interpreted along those lines by some of the leading lights. I do agree with you, however, that the injections of “honor-killing” and Shari’ah seem absolutely wrong in the case of Aasiya. I am not sure, though — as I tried to explain in my earlier post — that it is just all about racism. The perfect storm of unrelated events surrounding the murder make it more complicated than that.
I’d just like to echo everything Fatemah said in her last post directed at Rayhana. The Catholic Church did in fact cover up their molestation scandals, which is one reason victims and their supporters are as angry as they are. Not only that, many Catholics (perhaps with good reason) argue that priests are unfairly viewed as molesters when in fact they’re no more likely to be child molesters than anybody else. And yes, I have heard plenty of Catholics (and non-Catholics, for that matter) complain of “Cathlophobia.” LOTS. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more parallels I see between the Catholic response to the pedophile scandal and the Muslim response to domestic violence cases.
From my perspective as a non-Muslim, I must say that I am quite impressed by the Muslim response to this particular case. I see plenty of sympathy for Aasiya Hassan and condemnation of Muzzammil, not to mention outright calls to action against domestic violence. I have yet to see a Muslim invoke Surah 4:34 in this killer’s defense, and I see no indication that Muzzammil used this verse.
Here’s no hoping the anti-domestic violence momentum continues something good comes out of this tragedy.
One quibble with what you said, Fatemah: I don’t think you can really sue an Imam or Sheik who tells you to keep quiet about domestic abuse, at least not in the USA. If your Imam threatened you to keep quiet (e.g. “shut up or I’ll hurt you!”), then that would be grounds for a lawsuit. Keep in mind that in the Catholic Church case, the priests (e.g. “employees” of the church) themselves were guilty of the crimes and covered them up. I don’t think it’s comparable to an imam telling a woman to not talk about her abusive husband, since the imam himself is not involved in the crime.
@ Rayhana: I emailed you further info about Surah 4:34; I didn’t want this thread to get off topic.
@ Muffy: I guess you’re right about the lawsuits. So much for the uniquely American approach! ;)
[...] the Muslimah Media Watch roundtable tonight, Fatemeh and Krista decisively blow the “honor killing” distraction out of the debate. [...]
This is a fantastic discussion.
As an Arab/American Catholic (Lebanese/Maronite) I wanted to weigh in on the parallels between the media representations of the child-molestation scandal in the Catholic church and Aasiya Hassan’s murder. While Rayhana makes a good point re: the historical persecution of Catholics (which did/does have ethnocentric and nationalist overtones) I think the important distinction is the activation of centuries-old Orientalist tropes in this account. The notion that Muzamil Hassan’s ethnic and religious background make him somehow radioactive–an infectious presence in the body politic–allows for a discussion of Aasiya Hassan’s murder in exceptional terms…When the sad truth is that husbands murdering their wives is all too common across cultures in North America. Even if religious and/or cultural factors played a role in her murder the same might be said of any of the hundreds of other cases of violence against women that occurred while I was typing this post. Focusing on the ethnic and religious particulars of the Hassan case not only demonizes Muslims and Middle Eastern and South Asian people, regardless of our religious affiliation, but it perpetuates the myth that violence against women does not happen in the “civilized” west.
I cosign Rochelle’s point from the first post:
“The real tragedy of this case was that Ms. Hassan tried several times to get help. Who failed? Where did they fail? Did the fear of demonizing the Muslim community work to silence women? These are the questions we should be asking.”
Analyzing the Orientalist and Islamophobic discourses around this tragedy does NOT amount to an implicit defense of Muzamil Hassan, but rather lets us focus the criticism where it belongs.
[...] week, we hold a special roundtable about the murder of Aasiya Hassan, ask if there’s anything “desi” about Desi Dolls, discuss sexual fetishization of [...]
[...] have far-reaching implications for the way that people are seen. For example, last week we had a discussion about the ways that terms like “honour killing” and “terrorist” are being [...]
[...] have far-reaching implications for the way that people are seen. For example, last week we had a discussion about the ways that terms like “honour killing” and “terrorist” are being used in relation [...]
[...] can have far-reaching implications for the way that people are seen. For example, last week we had a discussion about the ways that terms like “honour killing” and “terrorist” are being used in relation [...]
“what makes this different that any other domestic violence case?”
How about the fact that a head was separated from the body?
This isn’t the first time that a domestic violence case in the U.S. has entailed a decapitating. And, for the record, Nicole Simpson’s head was almost detached from her body. The “decapitation” excuse doesn’t work.
Fatameh, mentality like your is responsible for murders of Aasiya Hassan, Aqsa Parves, Said Sisters, Sandela Kanwal and countless others. If we had the balls to face the issue, it wouldn’t be an issue.
@ reformislam: Really? Fatemeh giving examples of other cases of murders involving decapitation is indicative of a violent mentality and an unwillingness to face the issue? It’s not like she made those stories up…
If you look back at the beginning of this post, you’ll see a link to the collection of statements (http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/02/17/a-collection-of-statements-concerning-the-murder-of-aasiya-hassan/) that was published on MMW the week before this post went up. Many of these do demonstrate an acknowledgement of the problems of domestic violence within Muslim communities (in fact, not unlike the statement that you linked to), by a whole lot of people – including many from prominent Muslim organisations – who do indeed have “the balls to face the issue.” Look also at the end of this post for some comments by MMW writers on the need for Muslims to better address these issues.
Second, as has been mentioned a few times in this post and in the comments section, our job here is to analyse the media. Pointing out instances where Muslims have been collectively blamed for the actions of this individual does not negate a condemnation of his action or the actions of other Muslims who have committed violence. Rather, it acknowledges that domestic violence is not a uniquely Muslim thing, nor is it something to which Muslims are uniquely predisposed. By attributing this murder solely to Muzzamil Hassan’s Muslim faith, many media articles have suggested that Muslims are inherently violent or that Islam motivates people to violence, which is an unfair portrayal that can fuel hatred and oppression. It is possible to stand up against the Islamophobia created by these articles without being apologetic or ignorant of some of the internal problems that exist within our communities.
[...] or really intellectually dishonest here. I defer to Krista at Muslimah Media Watch (MMW) on this one: Even the most extreme and violent (mis)interpretations of Shari’ah don’t allow for beheading a [...]
[...] The Message International says NO! to Domestic Violence June 3, 2009 Posted by Faith in Books/Magazines. Tags: domestic violence, ICNA, magazine trackback In the past, I have been critical of Muslim organizations for their relative silence on issues affecting women. So I was pleasantly surprised when the entire February/March edition of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)’s magazine, The Message International, was dedicated to domestic violence. The front cover was nice with a picture of street signs that read “NO! TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” . The release of the issue coincided with the tragic murder of Aasiya Hassan. [...]
[...] condemning the murders. For background on the use of the term “honor killing,” see these two previous MMW posts. I’d be interested in seeing some of your reactions in the comments [...]
I realize I am late in entering this discussion, but I feel I must disagree with Sobia’s suggestion that: “Had the victim been a White, non-Muslim woman, I have a strong sense she would have been afforded a little more respect.”
Without challenging your right conclusions that overt racism is clearly attached to the concept of “honour killing” and your correct concerns about the inappropriateness of separating it from other domestic violence occurring in all our communities, particularly in North America, the truth is that there is little respect afforded to the issue at all when the victims are white.
The reason highlighting “honour killing” appears so problematic (and why it is clearly racist) is that the media ONLY report violence against women when it is tied to supposed “foreign” or non-Christian family values. In actuality, violence against women gets very little media attention, which is why the press is so successful in making it appear that “honour killing” is more prevalent in Muslim communities than similar violence in “mainstream” communities. The media are more likely to report familiar violence when the perpetrator is femal, despite the fact that women are 8 times more likely to be harmed by a man with whom they have at some point been intimate than a stranger, and over 50% of female homicide victims are killed by the same, compared to only 5% of men (i.e., femicide IS a familial practice regardless of culture or religion). Nonetheless, these incidents are rarely reported, and even if they are, the healines rarely identify the victims as female. As with “honour killing,” victim-blaming is as prominent and, unlike crimes of “honour”, is more likely to be accepted by the community as reasonable justification in cases of “domestic violence” or sexual assault when the women are white because (again for racist reasons) they are expected to “know better” and be better able to protect themselves.
I think the other discourse strategy is to focus on the familial aspects – parents are supposed to protect their children, not sacrifice them for selfish gain such as saving face – that identifies this as a more “heinous” crime than killing a spouse or partner. “Honour” crimes are presumed to be more pre-mediated than the typically accepted explanation of sudden “passion” offered in what has now been euphemistically dubbed “intimate partner violence” rather than the more appropriate and reality reflective “violence toward women” or femicide.
It is embarassing that the outrage expressed toward “honour killing” is racist and infantalizing, but at least anger and protectionistic impuses exist (if wrongfully motivated). Similarly angry public response is rare in domestic situations, even gender-driven mass murders or the much more frequent and familiar murder-suicide, which are most often attributed to individual deviance rather than community driven tolerant support for misogynistic attitudes.
The biggest problem I face as a white feminist activist is trying to team up with or support “other” women to deal with the situation on all fronts without being labeled as a racist or colonialist for imposing my Western values or chastised for treating my allies as unable to respond themselves. In our society, where multiculturalism is so highly valued, it is pure anti-feminist backlash to interpret it to mean that I cannot comment on a tradition that is not my own.
The truth is that patriarchal violence against women, especially that which is wrongly enforced in the name of (fundamentalist) religion, is the tradition of ALL heritages. Women, white or otherwise, receive very little respect in any culture.