Ask Not What the ASMA Society Can Do for You . . .
Surfing around for information on honor killings and female genital mutilation, I light on the American Society for Muslim Advancement’s 2004 statement on the then-current case of Amina Lawal, a Nigerian woman convicted of adultery in a Sharia court and sentenced to death. ASMA’s statement walks readers through the history of Muslim law on female adultery, explains that only the Maliki school considers pregnancy to be prima facie evidence of adultery, and asserts that the Nigerian courts perverted even the Maliki standards of jurisprudence. They argue that the high evidentiary standards required to convict under most schools of Sharia, including the frankly nonsensical legal holding that one can get pregnant from one’s husband up to four years after his death, stem from a Quranic desire to make conviction under adultery charges as difficult as possible:
Consequently, the Nigerian courts have not followed even their own Maliki jurisprudence in trying the case of Lawal. Her case appears to have been driven more by political and tribal considerations, than Islamic ones.
Shedding light on how Islamic Law is distorted and misused will depend upon how much interest American Muslims take in this subject. Muslim Women must act in the service of their cause rather than expect others to do it for them.
It’s a call to action for American Muslims in a human rights case and a repudiation of injustice based on the tenets of the faith used by the Nigerian courts to justify their outrage. Lawal’s case was overturned on appeal, where she was represented by “Nigerian lawyers trained in both secular and Sharia law,” including Hauwa Ibrahim, who sounds like a pretty amazing woman.
I want ASMA and Ibrahim and their allies to succeed. I want them to prevail against fundamentalists and radicals here, there and everywhere. I don’t see sweeping claims by non-Muslims that “pure Islam requires jihad” and “so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t exist” and the like doing these folks a damn bit of good. Nor do I see denying their existence or significance as accurate or just.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 11, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
Could you point out where anyone says moderate Muslims don’t exist? I haven’t heard anyone say that.
In fact, there was a story in my local newspaper about a moderate Muslim just today. Unfortunately she was just killed by her father for refusing to wear a hijab. This happened about a 10 minute drive from my house.
Dad charged after daughter killed in clash over hijab
Friends say father disapproved of Western dress
Chris Wattie, National Post
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
http://www.financialpost.com/conrad_black/story.html?id=159480
TORONTO — A Mississauga, Ont., cab driver has been charged with the murder of his 16-year-old daughter, who was attacked in the family home after clashing with her strict Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic head scarf for women.
Comment by Michelle —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Could you point out where anyone says moderate Muslims don’t exist? I haven’t heard anyone say that.
*sigh*
Chris, I read and hear this accusation all the time. If you want me to cite a source, I would point you to the radio first and the internets second. That sort of talk is easy enough to find.
You copy and paste your sources for HORRIBLE news.
the only problem I have with your doing such is that you do it for, let’s say, particular reasons.
Parents punish their children. For religious and other reasons. Some children die. Others survive and make peace with their parents.
The point of this post was, I think, to encourage those who stand up for children — no matter where they are.
Chris, think about your reaction to this post. Why did you write what you did? What was your point? Did you get Jim’s point?
I know the answers to those questions.
You’re a good man, Jim. Thanks for stnading up for us. We need people like you.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:30 am
Chris, I read and hear this accusation all the time. If you want me to cite a source, I would point you to the radio first and the internets second. That sort of talk is easy enough to find.
Then why didn’t you find a specific example? Or are you worried about misquoting Mark Steyn again?
Parents punish their children. For religious and other reasons. Some children die.
And you don’t have a problem with this? Michelle, he strangled her to death for not wearing a hijab. And this happened not in the Sudan, but next to Applewood Plaza, where I shop for groceries.
Chris, think about your reaction to this post. Why did you write what you did? What was your point? Did you get Jim’s point?
I thought my point was pretty clear. Yes, there are moderate Muslims. But it seems to me that for every Aqsa Parvez, there’s a Muhammad or Waqas Parvez nearby. This isn’t the first honour killing in Canada, and it won’t be the last. I’m very sorry that’s the case, but I don’t see the point in denying it.
I’m a libertarian, and people like Muhammad and Waqas Parvez represent a very dangerous threat to Western liberal democratic values. Why doesn’t anyone here seem to be able to admit it?
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:31 am
I’m a libertarian, and people like Muhammad and Waqas Parvez represent a very dangerous threat to Western liberal democratic values.
Yes. Yes they do.
That’s what we have prisons for: To punish violent criminals.
What more do you want?
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:42 am
How about an immigration system that lets in fewer people like Muhammad and Waqas Parvez?
Comment by wade —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:53 am
an immigration system that denies entry to convicted murderers would be no bad thing whether the murderer was pakistani, mexican or dutch.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 5:23 am
We already exclude convicted murderers; the problem is with people who immigrate and then commit their crimes here.
By the way, I haven’t heard of any honour killings by Mexicans or non-Muslim Europeans.
Comment by Doug —
December 12, 2007 @ 5:38 am
Like Muhammad and Waqas Parvez how?
Comment by wade —
December 12, 2007 @ 5:43 am
Honour killings = murder, so far as i can see. I don’t know of any accurate way of predicting what will happen in the future. If you know of one, can you give me next saturdays lottery results?
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 5:50 am
Like Muhammad and Waqas Parvez how?
Islamists (i.e., Muslim fundamentalists) likely to engage in honour killings and other terrorist activities (like plotting to behead our PM and blow up Parliament, for which another group were recently arrested).
On the other hand, let’s open our doors to everyone like Aqsa Parvez, who are threatened with death in Muslim countries for apostacy, homosexuality, not wearing a hijab, or otherwise not obeying their father/husband. I’m not a racist.
Wade, I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more Islamists = more honour killings and more terrorism.
Comment by Doug —
December 12, 2007 @ 6:34 am
Are you sure it was an Honor killing? It does not seem to be as cold-blooded and calculated as most honor killings are described. The stories published so far are cr@p for details but you are a lot closer to the murder. Regardless, I don’t get the point you are making about Muslim moderates.
Comment by William Burns —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Googling the phrase “moderate muslims don’t exist” gets 14 hits (this post at the top) of which 11 use the phrase to deny it, and three, mostly posts in comment threads, mean it literally. One refers to Marty Peretz having said this in 1984, but doesn’t give a reference.
Comment by William Burns —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:21 am
“moderate muslims do not exist” has thirty one hits that seem better balanced, although a lot of the Islamophobic references are to one individual, a Turcobelgian priest called Father Samuel.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:31 am
Chris might want to prevent the immigration of people who espouse hateful ideologies. That’s not unreasonable on its face, until you realize that one man’s hateful ideology is another man’s support for freedom fighters. Personally, I think it’s all hateful ideology (unless the freedom fighters don’t target civilians), but I somehow suspect most Steyn fans see it differently..
My impression is that most Muslim-bashers do admit the existence of “moderate Muslims”, but their definition probably is a narrow one, requiring the Moderate Muslim to agree with them on more issues than just whether they are personally willing to commit crimes. For instance, Melanie Phillips seems to think a Moderate Muslim has to agree with her kindergarten view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as pure good vs. pure evil.
And then there’s the question of support for terrorism. Frankly, if it is couch potato support for terrorism, not actual plotting or involvement in terrorist actions, then any ban applied to Muslims is going to sweep in a very large fraction of the actually existing American citizenry. I know people who are Christian Zionists–that’s support for terrorism, whether they admit it or not. Lots of Americans are or have been supporters of “freedom fighters”, which in this context means terrorists who support US foreign policy goals. Many Americans (probably even including an occasional Steyn fan) support torture, which is state terrorism. Then there are some of the friends I grew up with, who cheered the murder of uppity civil rights leaders.
But there’s an easy way out. Just pick on the Muslims.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:47 am
To be clear, the term “Christian Zionist” refers to people like John Hagee, who see Israel as the stage for the Second Coming very soon now, and oppose giving up one acre of stolen West Bank land to the Palestinians. Maybe everyone knew that, but you never know who will wander into a blog thread these days.
Comment by Doug —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:47 am
Your google searches didn’t pick up the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 12, 2007 @ 8:01 am
When it comes to gender, we have the famous madonna-whore complex. It fits all women into either the nasty slut of virtuous matron template. It’s sexist.
Discussion turns to variations within Islam, and moderate Islam, and the very first thing you do is post a story in which there’s a bad, living Muslim and a good, dead one. It’s the cultural analogue of madonna-whore. That’s bigotry.
Also, the claim from a habitué of LGF, let alone the “Devil” threads here, that nobody has ever denied the existence of “moderate muslims” is extremely disingenuous. In a single freep thread alone, the vast majority of the comments deny the existence of moderate muslims.
Donald, I agree: when it comes to Islamophobes, their definition of “moderate” muslims is, in practical terms, agrees with my position on all essential issues.
There are pages and pages of results for “no moderate muslims,” and that’s just one variation of the phrase.
Comment by Barry —
December 12, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Jim, Thoreau, on a couple of blogs people are coming to the point of realization that on some issues, the only question is stone ignorant/deluded, or evil. That there might be those who are genuinely informed seekers of unpopular truths, but that they’re so rare that not even the National Enquirer people believed that they really existed.
The classic examples I’ve recently encountered are racial genetic differences in IQ (what I call ‘Bell Curvism’). There are others, and at this point the idea that All Islam is Evil falls into that category.
Don’t respect these people; not only do they not deserve it, but they’ll use any respect against you. Don’t argue with them; that’s like wrestling with a pig.
Comment by Marc —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:01 am
The entire LGF approach is pretty simple. Pick out articles that always put muslims in a bad light. This includes outrageous statements by Muslims (which there will always be in plenty, there being many Muslims); criminal acts by Muslims (ditto); etc. etc. etc. This could, of course, be done for almost any religious or ethnic group – presumable you could produce a steady stream of truthful articles about lazy and criminal blacks or whites if it suited your fancy.
They then innocently protest that they’re only reporting the news, and that they aren’t bigots. They think that they’ve proven that the people they hate are just animals. It cannot occur to them that the entire process is motivated by, and sustained by, pure bigotry on their part.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Emphasis mine. From this interview.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:25 am
Personally, if you want me to laud reformers in the Muslim World, Jim. Fine. I can agree, and I can also admire the courage of this Nigerian lawyer and her Sudanese counterparts whom you pointed to in a previous blogpost. I even find the ASMA people well-intentioned.
What I want you to understand, though, is that these people are a small minority within their religion. They’re courageous largely in proportion to how outside the mainstream their views are.
Here’s an article from the ASMA site.
Note this sentence:
He is married to Daisy Kahn, a Muslim from Kashmir, who also runs his small nonprofit foundation, the American Society for Muslim Advancement.
I notice also that he’s a Sufi, which is not a mainstream Islamic belief:
From Wikipedia:
The relationship between traditional Islamic scholars and Sufism is complicated due to the variety views held among them. Many traditional scholars, such as Al-Ghazali, helped its propogation while there are also many traditional scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah who opposed it as an innovation. However, it must be noted that the vast majority of Muslims do not practice Sufism. To the average, everyday ordinary Muslim, Sufis are what the article states at the outset – a “mystical” order that is hardly mainstream. In fact amongst the practices of today’s Sufis include visiting the graves and masoleums of dead “saints” and holding all kinds of mystical ceremonies over there and this is seen by many Muslims as un-Islamic.
So, yes, I’ll acknowledge whatever needles you happen to find, but I’m asking you to acknowledge the haystack you find them in.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Donald, I agree: when it comes to Islamophobes, their definition of “moderate†muslims is, in practical terms, agrees with my position on all essential issues.
Here’s my standard: When you have an Islamic society where you can either apostatize from your religion or convert to another with very little fear of physical and legal retaliation.
I say a society, and not individuals, because it’s only when you have a society operating on this basis that you know your “moderate Islam” is a working theology accepted by the mainstream.
Comment by Ikram —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Chris, glad to have a voice from Mississauga here.
You said
This isn’t the first honour killing in Canada, and it won’t be the last.
Do you have a citation for that? The only confirmed Canadian hnour killing know of is of BC’s Amandeep Atwal, who was killed by her father for dating a white guy.
There is also the infamous case of Canadian Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, who was reportedly killed on her mother’s orders by hitmen while she was visiting India.
However, both of these girls were from Punjabi Sikh families. I know of no Canadian honour killings involving Muslims.
Comment by mds —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Well, there’s Turkey. And in Tunisia, Ramadan is often honored in the breach, and the significant presence of women in the judiciary is no doubt frowned upon in some quarters of Islam. And Iran at least acknowledges its religious minorities, to the point of guaranteed government representation, though I suspect that they wouldn’t look kindly upon substantial proselytizing by the Christians. Likewise, Khatami and Ahmedinejad seem to have somewhat divergent views of Islam; is one of them an apostate? If so, which? And a significant number of Palestinians are Christian, though they aren’t well-represented in the political leadership the way Christians were in pre-invasion Iraq.
(Thankfully, Israel is less likely to throw Jews for Jesus pamphleteers in jail these days, though their teams still sometimes face threats of physical retaliation from the ultra-orthodox who so often control the political balance of power.)
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Barry,
I see your point. However, I think you paint with too broad a brush. Derek, for instance, acknowledges that there are huge numbers of self-described Muslims who are not violent fanatics. However, he would argue that they are (without realizing it) not real Muslims.
I disagree with Derek, but I recognize that Derek isn’t prejudiced against a billion people. He recognizes distinctions within that group, even if he views those distinctions in a way that I disagree with.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Jim, did you even consider the fact that maybe I posted about the story not because I’m a bigot, but because this just happened where I live, and it’s the #1 story in the news and on the radio. I hope you never have to explain what an honour killing is to a scared daughter or niece who doesn’t want to go to school.
That said, you’re right, there are moderate Muslims, not all are dead, and not all are like Hirsi Ali. I don’t require that they agree with me on everything; by “moderate” what I really mean is nonviolent, no participation in terrorism (either actively or just funding it), no honour killings, no coercive domination of their wives and daughters, and no encouraging others to do these things.
Ikram, there have been several honour killings in Canada involving Muslims. Last year Hasibullah Sadiqi killed his sister in Ottawa because he disapproved of her boyfriend. The Supreme Court of Canada even had to rule last year that family honour is not a defense to murder (in the case of Adi Abdul Humaid, a Muslim who stabbed his wife to death for adultery).
There are many more; my guess is you’ve never heard of them because the media are afraid of being called bigots or Islamophobes by people like Jim Henley, so they bury the story or report it on page A42.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
No participation in terrorism (either actively or just funding it), no honour killings, no coercive domination of their wives and daughters–
These all sound like activities that are probably illegal in Canada. So prosecute people who break the law. End of story.
Comment by mds —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Don’t use that masterful guesswork to pick lottery numbers, unless you like losing money. (Considering that you asserted in the same comment that the story of Miss Parvez is the #1 news story where you live, Mr. Henley obviously neglected to make his phone calls fast enough.)
I won’t speak for Mr. Henley, but I would consider that you posted about it only because it’s a big current news story, if you didn’t also have the ability to regurgitate rare instances of wicked Muslim violence in Canada, no matter when and where they happened. When someone is obsessively keeping tabs on all crimes committed by a racial / cultural group, and attributes malign intent to a statement about being underrepresented in a representative system of government, well…
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
These all sound like activities that are probably illegal in Canada. So prosecute people who break the law. End of story.
So, just open the borders to Islamists, and we have to pay to clean up whatever messes they create?
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
mds, the Parvez case seems to be different because the victim was a 16 year old girl. It’s a big local story, but it’s being buried at many of the big leftist national news outlets, like http://www.cbc.ca/.
I won’t speak for Mr. Henley, but I would consider that you posted about it only because it’s a big current news story, if you didn’t also have the ability to regurgitate rare instances of wicked Muslim violence in Canada, no matter when and where they happened. When someone is obsessively keeping tabs on all crimes committed by a racial / cultural group, and attributes malign intent to a statement about being underrepresented in a representative system of government, well…
I mentioned two cases (both in Ottawa, where I used to work; both last year), but I remember hearing about many others. That’s obsessive? And proof of bigotry? I guess I should just ignore such news, and pretend everything is okay.
By the way, the statement wasn’t about being “underrepresented.” It was “there’s too many whites” in the government. Yes, I see “malign intent” there.
Comment by Ikram —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Chris — I know about the Sadiqi case — I had thought that there was no publicly released motive for that killing. After all the Hasibullah’s sister Khatera had been living with her fiance’s family with her mother’s approval. Honour killings traditionally involve familial honour, and as in the Atwal case and the Kaur case (a clear honour killing), the family usually supports the killer.
Do you have a link or a citation that syas the Sadiqi killing involved familial honour and the family’s consent? It’s fair to suspect, but without more evidence, the situation isn’t clear.
As for the Humaidi case — “honour killing” was actually the defence! The Crown charged, and proved, that Humaidi killed his wife in a premeditated fashion because he was having an affair with the maid. Humaidi’s “honour” defense would have reduced the charge to manslaughter (crime of passion), but was dismissed by the judge as “having an air of unreality”. It’s a bizarre case, but not an honour killing.
You also said
There are many more
If you know about them, tell me. No need to be shy.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
I heard a story on the BBC a few weeks ago about homophobia in the English-speaking Caribbean–a region that, in the eyes of many international GLBT activists and observers, is among the most homophobic on earth. As in, in the case of Jamaica, multiple confirmed reports of gay people being chased by mobs and beaten to death in the street in broad daylight homophobic.
Oddly enough, this report did not lead to extensive debate in the American political blogosphere about the vicious intolerance that is inherent in the Evangelical Protestantism that is dominant in Anglo-Caribbean countries. No disquisitions on whether this kind of bigotry was representative of “real” Christianity, and whether more tolerant Christians should really be considered Christians at all. No expressions of outrage over the fact that moderate Jamaican Christians weren’t speaking out. No discussion at all, really.
no coercive domination of their wives and daughters
Such coercive domination being unknown in Christian lands for hundreds of years. I mean, seriously.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Ikram, the judge dismissed the argument that honour killing could be used as a defense to murder, not the argument that it was an honour killing. In fact, by using it as a defense, Humaidi was admitting that was his motive.
You also said
There are many more
If you know about them, tell me. No need to be shy.
I’ve already been called a bigot and Islamophobe here for mentioning two cases; I shudder to think at what I might be called if I mention more. To be honest I don’t recall the names of the killers, though several happened in BC.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
No, you should just put it in its proper context and not exaggerate it’s importance nor unjustifiably assign some uniqueness to it, pretending as if similar violence doesn’t happen daily among other subcultures.
And yes, your focus on violence perpetrated by Muslims to the exclusion of even greater frequency of violence by other groups is indeed proof of bigotry. I live in a semi-rural area that is almost 100% white with a fairly high crime rate that includes rapes and murders – not unusual for similar areas and one that outstrips the number of Muslim honor killings by orders of magnitude.
Why aren’t you obsessing on that, a much more likely danger?
It’s simple. Whites don’t scare you.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I’m going to start obsessively cataloging Muslim scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and medical professionals that I come across.
I’ll hold this up as proof that we can’t afford to take a chance on NOT letting them in.
I don’t know what it will actually prove, but it will be just as rigorous as the “Look! A Muslim just committed a violent crime! None of those people should be let in!” comments.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Here’s a question: What if it turned out that incidents of violence varied among Muslims according to sect, ethnicity, geographic origin, or socioeconomic status? Would anybody who fears Muslim immigrants adopt a more nuanced stance?
What if it turned out that Muslim immigrants (or at least some identifiable subset of them) had higher rates of educational accomplishment, higher average incomes, or greater likelihood to start successful small businesses?
Would that temper your views on Muslim immigrants?
Finally, what if a person from a majority-Muslim area sought admission to the US, but insisted that he or she was a Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, Yazidi, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Mandaean, Bahai, Deist, atheist, or agnostic? What would you say?
Comment by Ikram —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Chris —
In the Humaid case the defendent was trying to use an honour killing argument to get a lighter sentence. His claim — offended honour and religiously sanctioned spousal abuse — isn’t necesarily the truth.
The hard thing here is that Humiad killingv wife for having an affair would usually just be called misogyny. And Murder. Men kill women all the time — as a an Ottawa boy you must remember the Christian Frank Mailly killing his wife and three children in 2006. Or Sikh Santbir Brar killing his wife and two children last week. These aren’t honour killings, even if the men killed the women for affairs.
To be a “honour killing”, there has to be some familial/community sanction. There’s no evidence that Humaid’s son approved of his father killing his mother.
I try to follow this issue closely, and was surprised when you said you had heard of many honour killings involving Muslims in Canada. I had of very very few (actually, with the possible exception of the Sadiqi case, there have been none until yesterday).
Please don’t let a few harsh words by random commenters deter you from contributing evidence for your claim.
Comment by Barry —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
I’d also add that these people tend to reveal themselves by being obsessive compulsive posters on the subject.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Hah, I’m obsessive compulsive too!
For anyone who cares, I never said stop all Muslim immigration, or that I wasn’t worried about crimes committed by non-Muslims. Actually I said the opposite; see comment #10 for example.
Comment by mds —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
You’re not a bigot, yet you honestly think that this was not a call for greater representation by non-whites in Ontario government agencies? Please explain exactly what it does mean, then; just how many white agency members do you think Dr. Qaadri wants to murder in order to establish parity? Or by “too many white people” on boards and commissions, is he signaling that it’s time to get rid of provincial government entirely, and bring Ontario under the Umma?
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Ikram, what about the Farah Khan murder?
Or the Najib Bellari/El-Mehdi murder in Montreal?
Seriously, spend a couple minutes on google and let them call you the racist.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Well, there’s Turkey. And in Tunisia, Ramadan is often honored in the breach, and the significant presence of women in the judiciary is no doubt frowned upon in some quarters of Islam. And Iran at least acknowledges its religious minorities, to the point of guaranteed government representation, though I suspect that they wouldn’t look kindly upon substantial proselytizing by the Christians.
Can you apostatize or convert to another religion in these countries without physical and legal cost. I don’t think it’s the case in any of them, even Turkey. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Here’s a question: What if it turned out that incidents of violence varied among Muslims according to sect, ethnicity, geographic origin, or socioeconomic status? Would anybody who fears Muslim immigrants adopt a more nuanced stance?
Yes. I don’t think we can really do that though because of constitutional issues, which is why I advocate a country-by-country basis. Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some others would be off the list.
Of course, we can make reasonable exceptions to this for religious minorities under severe persecution and high profile political refugees.
Let me address the “real” Muslim issue. If a Catholic is spotty at observing Lent and Confession and attends services on Christmas and Easter, I would not say that he isn’t a “Real Catholic.” He’s just not very observant, and he’s not a good example of what the religion practices.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
mds, to be honest I think Qaadri is an idiot and not a threat to anything. My point was that if anyone said there were too many Muslims on those boards (or if Mark Steyn quoted an imam saying this…), there would be no end to the charges of racism.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more Catholic priests
= more sexual abuse of children. ”
“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more Christian pastors = more hidden homosexual trysts. ”
“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more CEO’s = more massive defrauding of investors and workers. ”
“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more Republican congressmen = more sexual molestation of teenage boys.”
[from the first half of the 20th c.]“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more good Christian folk = more lynchings of blacks.”
“I can’t predict the future, but I can predict that more white people = more carjackings, muggings, burglaries, rapes, thefts, murders, wife beating, school shootings, mall shootings, workplace shootings, and unprovoked invasions of countries in the middle east causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions wounded, to name a few.”
This is a fun game, I could play it all day. Makes me realize how much more overall violence whites are responsible for that Muslims.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
trex, why don’t you move to Pakistan? Then you won’t have to worry about being carjacked or mugged by any nasty white people.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Wow, nice dodge of the entire issue with a red herring. That’s usually what bigots resort to when faced with having to provide an actual argument versus their usual games of insinuation.
In the U.S. and Canada, which group is responsible for more overall crime, whites or Muslims?
I rest my case.
Also; extremists in Pakistan make up a small portion of that society. Your ignorance is duly noted.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
The problem in Pakistan is not an epidemic of violence among the general population. Rather, it’s the inability and/or unwillingness of the state to control the violent factions.
Even in the worst American neighborhoods, the vast majority of residents would never harm somebody. The problem is a breakdown of order, not a generalized plague of violence among all residents.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
In the U.S. and Canada, which group is responsible for more overall crime, whites or Muslims? I rest my case.
Considering that Muslims are less than 2% of the population, it would be scary indeed if they were responsible for more overall crime. Nice “case.”
Comment by Ikram —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Chris — Farah Khan? You’re suggesting that the horrific murder and dismemberment of 4 year old Farah Khan by her father and stepmother is an example of a honour killing? Are you just googling every crime committed by someone with a Muslim name?
There’s something really distasteful twisting the death of Farah Khan to fit your political argument. I’m sorry, I’m not interested in continuing the discussion.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Ikram, you asked for more examples, and now you accuse me of “twisting the death of Farah Khan” to fit my argument.
But I’m not twisting anything. Muhammad Khan killed her because he suspected she was the product of adultery, and thus was the “child of a dog.” His wife helped him, and she was convicted too.
Sorry, but if this isn’t an honour killing I’m not sure what is.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Which makes the point about your bigotry perfectly. Less than 2% of the population, responsible for a tiny portion of overall crime — and yet you focus on them to the exclusion of all else.
White kids are shooting up schools all the time. If it were Muslims doing this no doubt you’d be screaming about it and demanding their internment. Why are the whites who are committing the actual acts of terrorism and mass murder exempt from your criticisms???
Your blindness about your own behavior and motivations is breathtaking.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I don’t focus on Muslim crimes “to the exclusion of all else,” and I’m not calling for internment, or closed borders, or anything of the sort.
I posted because the Parvez honour killing in my own town, a couple days ago, demonstrates that hey, we might have a problem with a certain group of immigrants (Islamists, not Muslims in general).
And it seems like most people here not only refuse to acknowledge it, but call me a bigot, racist and Islamophobe for acknowledging it. So, thanks, but I think I’m done with this site too.
Comment by mds —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Well, we’ve seen in another thread that the definition of “apostasy” is difficult to pin down. However, even though the Prophet is usually presumed to have forbidden the drinking of wine, there’s an awful lot of imbibing done by not-particularly-observant Muslims in Turkey. (Alas, this is anecdotal, based on Turkish friends.) Conversion to Christianity also carries with it some separate nationalist baggage from the old days. Indeed, the current problems have arisen from a jingoist mentality that suspects those converted to Christianity by foreigners of having insufficient patriotism (sound familiar?). Turkish law nonetheless permits conversion, though the above nationalist sentiments are a genuine problem with observance of the law.
Tunisia forbids public proselytizing by non-Muslims, but there are no legal prohibitions against conversion itself, or any requirement to register conversion. There is unofficial resistance to converts, but it primarily manifests itself through bureaucratic runarounds. Christian congregations do have to have been established before 1956, so this is admittedly a back-door way to restrict their growth. The Tunisian government pays the salary of the Grand Rabbi and permits the operation of Jewish religious schools. Members of Baha’i are considered heretics, but the consequence of this is that they are permitted to practice their religion only in private homes.
I do still find it odd that you’re on the lookout for intolerance of “apostasy,” yet dismissive of large segments of a population being “insufficiently observant.” Seems a bit of a Catch-22. If, for instance, “insufficiently observant” Turkish Muslims aren’t really Muslim, then by that definition the Turkish government is quite tolerant of people abandoning Islam. You can’t exclude cafeteria Muslims when making blanket generalizations about the faith’s tenets, and also exclude them from the apostate or different faiths categories.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Dearborn Michigan has the largest community of Arabs outside the Middle East, making up fully a third of the 100,000 people that live in that community.
In 2005 Dearborn had three murders.
Fargo, North Dakota with almost the exact same population as Dearborn is 95% White, with a Muslim community numbering about 1.5% of the population.
In 2005 Fargo had two murders.
A February 1997 report on rape and sexual-based crime published by the United States Department of Justice stated that of the crimes surveyed, 56% of arrestees were “White”, 42% were “Black”, and 2% were of other races. [from Wikipedia]
The U.N. estimates that there are about 5000 honor killings worldwide in a year (including honor killings in Latin America). By contrast, Johannesburg, South Africa has over 10,000 murders a year alone.
When looked at objectively, statistics don’t support the assertion that Muslims are contributing to crime in any unusual measure. As a group, they are responsible for far, far less a percentage of violent crime than whites, blacks, and Hispanics in in North America.
The Steynians, LGF’ers, Malkinites, Red Staters and their ilk have a lot of apologizing to do.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Chris, what about Shahina Siddiqui and Faisal Kutty? Are their cases relevant here?
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
I do still find it odd that you’re on the lookout for intolerance of “apostasy,†yet dismissive of large segments of a population being “insufficiently observant.†Seems a bit of a Catch-22. If, for instance, “insufficiently observant†Turkish Muslims aren’t really Muslim, then by that definition the Turkish government is quite tolerant of people abandoning Islam.
Apostasy means outright leaving the faith, and being free to say so.
Are you free to do that in these countries with no fear of legal or physical reprisal? Being lax in observance is not apostasy. It’s just slacking off.
Can you change religions with no fear of reprisal?
The fact that you can’t give me a simple yes or no to these questions doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, but maybe they do meet the mark, and if so then allowances can be made for them.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Derek, weren’t mds’s answers re Turkey and Tunisia pretty straightforward in terms of what you could or couldn’t do?
Comment by matthew hogan —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
We used to have semi-legal honor killings in the USA; we called them “lynch mobs”.
Comment by Mona —
December 12, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Chris Vanoostveen —et al: read my latest post about, among others, a Pakistani Muslim.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Dammit, I’ve gotten e-mail notifications for new comments from Chris and Derek, but they’re not showing up in the thread and they’re not in the spam folder. I apologize if they’re not showing up for other people too.
Comment by Anticorium —
December 12, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
the Parvez honour killing
You’re referring to the Parvez abusive-father-who-beats-his-children-finally-snaps? A tragedy much like far too many other tragedies where an abusive parent’s already-thin self-control finally snaps?
I mean, if you want to consider child abuse a uniquely Islamic crime, well, that’s your prerogative. But I doubt you’d come back empty-handed if you set out to search for stories where a Christian or Jewish child who’s had to go to school with hidden bruises finally ends up dead.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
No, Jim, I didn’t post anything. As I said I think I’m through here.
While I’m back, though, I’ll point out an article on Muslim extremism and the Parvez case, by Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan, located at http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162281
I agree with everything in it. But I suppose they’re Islamophobes too. Jews and Christians beat their wives too, and we had lynch mobs 100 years ago, so forget about it, there’s no problem with Islamist radicals today.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Derek, weren’t mds’s answers re Turkey and Tunisia pretty straightforward in terms of what you could or couldn’t do?
Not really. It isn’t apparent to me that you can apostatize or convert in either country without some form of physical or legal intimidation.
Here’s a page that doesn’t offer much hope.
In 1987, the aged Bourguiba was declared mentally unfit to continue as president and was removed from office in a bloodless coup. He was succeeded by Gen. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, whose tenure has been marked by repression, a poor human rights record, the rise in Islamic fundamentalism, and growing anti-Western sentiments among the populace. Ben Ali was reelected in Oct. 1999 with 99% of the vote in an election criticized by many human rights observers. In May 2000 Ben Ali’s Constitutional Democratic Assembly Party swept local elections with 92% of the vote, in a contest many opposition leaders boycotted. However, Tunisia’s economy continued to improve in the late 1990s, making the country one of the most attractive in Africa for foreign investors. In May 2002, a referendum passed that ended the three-term limit for the presidency. It permitted Ben Ali, who has served as president for more than 15 years, to run for two more terms. Opposition parties protested. In Oct. 2004, the president was reelected with 94% of the vote.
What you have here is another Middle Eastern dictator suppressing the more Islamist religious elements. Interestingly, some ministers have been declared apostates for their policies and criticisms of Islam.
Turkey isn’t as bad on paper, but there have been murders of converts there.
Comment by Jon H —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
“What you have here is another Middle Eastern dictator suppressing the more Islamist religious elements. ”
So wait, is he bad, or should we emulate him?
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
No, Jim, I didn’t post anything. As I said I think I’m through here.
Yes, leaving once your claims have been eviscerated by data is probably best. It won’t ease the sting of having been proven wrong but it will save you from further humiliation.
There are many more; my guess is you’ve never heard of them because the media are afraid of being called bigots or Islamophobes by people like Jim Henley, so they bury the story or report it on page A42.
Yes, newspapers are always burying the sensational stories that would keep them in business. They’re famous for it!
I mentioned two cases (both in Ottawa, where I used to work; both last year), but I remember hearing about many others.
Yes, the “many others” we all know about but simply can’t find cites for. But since Muslims are evil the rumors must be true, right?
In other news, Japanese women have sideways vaginas and Catholics eat babies.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
trex, type Farah Khan into google and see what comes up.
And read the Tarek Fatah piece. Is he a bigot too? Because my only “claims” are in his article.
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Simply terrible.
Is he a bigot too? Because my only “claims†are in his article.
Yep. Because he took one example and sensationalized it into an existential threat, all the while ignoring more real and prevalent threats from non-Muslims. Statistically speaking, this particular kind of violence doesn’t even show up on the crime radar. It’s the definition of bigotry to portray Muslims as worse purveyors of violence when, in fact, they are not.
Oh, and whites do it too:
In the interest of rationality, I do expect you’ll be showing up on wingnut blogs warning against the dangers of redneckofascism, right?
Next.
Comment by Jim Henley —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Actually, it was commment 26 that I thought was new, Chris. Anyway, props on posting the article by the two guys from the Muslim Canadian Congress. It beats hell out of completely ignoring the vigorous denunciations of honor crimes by two Muslim spokespeople in the article you leapt to link to this morning, here and on your blog. By my count, that’s at least four people we might both agree are “moderate Muslims.” All four of whom insist on zero tolerance for such crimes, just like you and me.
Meanwhile, these perps are getting arrested and tried, their “honor” defenses are getting rejected by the court, and despite your self-pity about meanies like me, the stories keep getting reported. That plus voluble Muslim spokesfolks condemning the practice. I note that it was someone from the Muslim Canadian Congress who stuck up for Mark Steyn in the article about the suit against him. IIRC, Steyn let the existence of Muslim support for his rights go unmentioned.
Now if you’ve ever even once on LGF or Jihadwatch or Gates of My Bunnies responded to some comment about the lack of Muslim opposition to honor killings or political correctness or whatever by noting, “Actually, the Muslim Canadian Congress has done some very good work on these issues,” I would be want to withdraw the bigotry assertions in your case. If you haven’t, give it a try and see what happens to you.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
I have, though not at those sites (at SDA, which is a Canadian site), and nothing happened to me. I would have given you the Tarek Fatah article earlier, but I didn’t read it until this afternoon.
The MCC does great work, and I fully support them. But the MCC proves my point. Tarek Fatah is actually resigning from the MCC because of constant death threats from radical Islamists (see http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20060803/fatah_resigns_060803/20060803?hub=TorontoHome).
So, trex, maybe now you can understand why he thinks radical Islam is a threat. Maybe you might want to refrain from throwing allegations of bigotry and racism around?
Comment by trex —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
No, I don’t think so.
I’ve shown beyond a shadow of a doubt on this thread that Muslim violence in North America comes nowhere near the level of threats from other groups. Not even close.
The Dixie chicks got death threats from hillbillies for not being patriotic enough. White kids shoot up schools and malls every year or so, committing mass murder – that is when they’re not blowing up the Oklahoma Federal building. Gangs of Hispanics and skinheads and Samoans and other nationalities roam the streets killing people.
You have not been able to answer or refute one single point I’ve made. You just keep running and screaming, “B-b-but . . . scary Muslims!”
That’s not argument or proof, that’s just fear-mongering.
Comment by Avram —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Honor killing used to be legal in Texas, too. The law that allowed a man to kill his wife if she cheated on him (but didn’t allow a woman to kill her cheating husband — there was a ruling on that) was repealed in the 1970s.
Comment by Michelle —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:21 am
Thanks Chris, for taking my comments out of context and publishing that on your blog. Real classy.
I see that while I was at work, you made your own work. Also classy.
Stay afraid Chris.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Um, didn’t you apologize on my site?
I’m not afraid of you.
Comment by Chris Vanoostveen —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:32 am
trex, you’re an idiot, and I don’t have time to continue this with you.
As I said on the other thread, if you think Tarek Fatah is an Islamophobe and a bigot, then I’m happy for you to call me one too.
Comment by trex —
December 13, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Which translated means you simply haven’t the ability to refute the arguments put forth here.
I’ve been very, very nice. Had I known you had some idiot right-wing identity-politics blog earlier on I might not have been.
If you’ve lived a sheltered life then I can understand being afraid of those who are different from you. It’s a natural reaction. But that’s just what it is, a reaction, a subconscious reflex. Let your rational mind get a hold of your fears and prejudices. That’s why I posted the crime data. If you take a deep breath and look objectively then you can put this experience into the proper context.
Is radical Islam a threat? Sure. Radical anything is. Abortion doctors get death threats from radical Christians, liberals get death threats from radical gun nuts. But you’re painting Islam as some kind of unique historical threat, which it is not, while at the same time impugning the 99.X% of the world’s 1 billion Muslims who are peaceful. That’s the problem.
Comment by John Spragge —
December 13, 2007 @ 3:37 am
Ironically, just as this sad story broke, the first trial of Robert Pickton came to a close. Pickton, a BC pig farmer, could not explain to the police why he had the dismembered remains of twenty-six (or so) women, mostly poor and Aboriginal, on his farm. Some of us would like the police to explain how 26 women could vanish off the streets of Vancouver without anyone noticing.
Canada does not actually have a sub-culture that condones “honour killings”, but we do have a segment of our population that sees First Nations women as lawful prey, and some of these people have, in the past, had something like a free pass from their communities (google “Helen Betty Osborne”). By some estimates, five hundred First Nations women in Canada have fallen victim to these attitudes.
So I’ll make a deal, Chris. If you can show me a mosque at which the police have found evidence of the “honour” killings of 26 Muslim women or girls, if the police and the community have ignored these killings, then I’ll agree that the Canadian Muslim community has a larger problem than other Canadian communities. If not, I’ll just note that even reactionary publications like the National Post (of Iranian yellow star infamy) have yet to come up with a single Canadian Muslim or Muslim orgnisation that has attempted to condone this act.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 13, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Jim and mds,
I didn’t comment on Iran. I wanted to give the matter a bit of though. There you have something of the reverse of Tunisia, where an unpopular religious government is ruling over a secularizing populace. Once that government goes, I think we may have a candidate that will satisfy my standards (which really doesn’t count for anything, but there it is).
Comment by Mike S. —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
On the subject of Turkey: I find Derek’s concern about the safety of apostates curious, in light of the hundreds of thousands of people who turned out to protest Abdullah Gul’s candidacy for president on the grounds that Gul was insufficiently secular (oh, ok, fine, too Islamist). It’s not exactly the same issue — the role of religion in the state rather than the role of religion in public life — but this was a fairly broad-based concern; Turks take their secularism seriously, and I have a hard time imagining that a society worried about the fact that the president’s wife wears a hijab would have much patience for the killing of apostates, or be especially inclined to treat that differently from any other murder.
I don’t know enough to conclusively say that this doesn’t happen — anything’s possible, after all — but I have a tough time believing the claim.
Anecdotally, while I don’t pretend that my experiences in Turkey represent the country as a whole, I can say that I noticed that (a) observance of the adhan was pretty hit-and-miss (and, when hit, almost never in an obvious way) and that (b) the amount Turks can and do drink in one sitting would put my Welsh and Scottish in-laws to shame. It’s also worth mentioning that Turkey has a fairly active fashion modeling scene, and that while waiting for my luggage in the airport I was accosted by a 12-foot billboard hawking leather products, adorned with a scantily-clad woman. Scantily-clad by North American standards, too.
I have no idea whether this makes Turks bad Muslims according to some arbitrary standard, nor do I especially care. I doubt they care, either. It seems to work for them.
Comment by Richard Aubrey —
December 14, 2007 @ 10:42 am
That the court thought that murder for honor was no defense is not the point.
That the perp thought it was is the point. Where’d he come up with that nutty idea?
Comment by Richard Aubrey —
December 14, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
A moderate Muslim is one who is moderately Muslim.
A moderate who is Muslim is not necessarily the same thing.
We would like to see the latter and hope–presume–it’s the same as the former.
It’s a presumption, not empirically demonstrated.
Comment by Anticorium —
December 14, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Where’d he come up with that nutty idea?
He was out of Twinkies.
Comment by Muslims Against Sharia —
January 2, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Most of the Western Muslim establishment is comprised of Islamist groups claiming to be moderates. True moderate Muslims reject Islamic supremacy and Sharia; embrace religious equality and democracy.
What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical.
Muslims Against Sharia compiled a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list.
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html
Poll: Who is a moderate Muslim?
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/poll-who-is-moderate-muslim.html