VITAM IMPENDERE VERO, IVVENALIS

The MAS Evades Instead of Condemning | UPDATED: Why The MAS Needs to Focus on Islam Instead of Lecturing the World About Domestic Violence in General

I was wondering the other day “Muslims Are Going to Condemn This… Right?” Today I see that the MAS has an answer for me:

Not really.

The MAS, instead of condemning the murder of a teenage girl by her father, who killed her because she was being un-Islamic, has opted to make excuses for the role that Islam played in Aqsa “Axa” Parvez’s murder.

Perhaps if enough of us think about this issue and the issue of domestic or family violence in general we may be able to do something to stop this terrible epidemic. Just this week, Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her father for not wearing hijab.  A young life cut short senselessly.  Although this certainly is a case of domestic violence, some are referring to this as an example of an “honor” killing.  The facts are not in yet as to whether or not this is the case.  And, as will all forms of domestic abuse, domestic violence and family violence, “honor” killings are not only a Muslim problem, [honor killing or not, Axa was murdered for not where a hijab, stop making excuses] and there is no “honor” involved.  Muslim sites have been responding in shock to this case (e.g. Achelois, Muslim Matters) and many others. It takes minimal research to find hundreds and even thousands of cases of conflict, abuse, family violence, and even murder between parents and teens in families that have been here for generations, who may or may not profess any particular religion, and who share common cultural values.  Even though some of these acts are carried out by members of religious communities and sometimes the violence is “justified” in religious terms or religion is claimed as the reason for the actions – the fact is that anyone making such a claim terribly misunderstands whatever religion they are claiming in defense of the indefensible. [is that so? Why don't you see what the top clerics say about daughters refusing to submit to their parents, don't forget to mention that it was disobediance to her parents and to Islam.]

In a study of more than 8,000 homicides in large urban counties, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) said 16 percent involved murder inside the family, in four out of ten of them a spouse killed a spouse.  Offspring were killed by their parents at twice the rate that offspring killed their parents.  The study further noted that 20.9% of family murders were of parents killing their children. [Yeah, well, that's horrible. It still doesn't speak to the fact that Axa Parvez was murdered because she repeatedly refused to submit, stop making excuses.]

Intermission:

Muslims have discussed this topic as much as everyone else (e.g. Islam the Modern Religion, and leading Muslim groups such as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Social Services Association and the Islamic Society of Toronto are all urging “zero tolerance” for domestic abuse and violence against women. [No shit. Well, here's a case of Islamic domestic violence that led to a 16 year old girls death... *crickets* ... ahem, wouldn't a condemnation of using violence to enforce Islamic dress on one's daughter be called for? *crickets*] The Muslim Women’s League published a position paper on honor killings.  Jewish, Muslim, Christian writers have produced a handbook to give religious leaders tools to help victims of violence.  And yet, the violence continues – somehow we are not getting through to the population in general.  We are not being good shepherds. [ya don't say...]It has been noted that:  Religious teachings or scripture are sometimes misinterpreted, distorted, and misused to suggest that domestic violence is acceptable or even God’s will among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Although, some who are quick to see the mote in their brothers eye have categorized this crime as a Muslim crime, a symptom of what’s wrong with Muslims, or as “proof” that somehow the religion of Islam is to blame.  [Domestic violence committed in the name of another religion does not negate the fact that this murder was done in the name of Allah.]

This is not a Muslim problem because it crosses all religious lines, but it is a Muslim problem because it also exists in our community.  [Oh, so now we're not even talking about Axa's murder any more. Okay, way to go MAS, way to address the issue head on!] As the late Shareefa Alkhateeb pointed out:  “An authoritarian family structure predisposes many Muslims in America to be abused in some way and possibly to become the victims of violence. Generally… [blah, blah, blah... excuses, excuses]

The rate of domestic abuse in the Muslim community is about the same as in the general population… [MAS, Muslim Atrocity Spindoctors]

Intermission 2:

Let’s not forget about this fun little discussion:

memriapostate.png

Click on Screen Cap. to See Clip

Allah’s Apostle, said: “Every one of you (people) is a shepherd. And every one is responsible for whatever falls under his responsibility. A man is like a shepherd of his own family, and he is responsible for them.” This Hadith is reported by both Bukhari and Muslim. We must be good shepherds. [Well, you're not really trying too hard, are you?]Just a few days ago The Republican reported that domestic violence deaths have reached record numbers in Massachusetts where there have been 38 deaths from domestic violence, and 12 suicides by perpetrators this year alone. [And this pertains to Axa's murder, how?]

Murders of pregnant women are rising across the country.  “A year-long examination by The Washington Post of death-record data in states across the country documents the killings of 1,367 pregnant women and new mothers since 1990.” [That's right, I forgot, you don't care about her murder, you're just trying to CYA because technically this domestic violence is sanctioned by many Islamic authorities. Oops, that was supposed to be a secret...]

People have killed themselves because of some perversion of religion like the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide.  and like Jim Jones and the People’s Temple, or the Solar Temple Murderers have killed others to fulfill some “religious” nightmare. [Now you are being insulting and disrepectful to the young girl who was murdered for refusing to submit to Islamic customs.]

Children of Thunder, three Mormon young people killed innocent people to defeat Satan? Sikh and Hindu “honor” killings are still prevalent in India.  Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu, a young Sikh Canadian girl was murdered at the order of her own family in 2003.  A Christian Palestinian girl was murdered by her family in an honor killing and in fact this problem is widespread in Palestinian society no matter the religious affiliation.  Rabbi Shlomo Arar committed an honor killing when he murdered a boy who was involved with his daughter.

A Christian father starved his infant son to death because of a “vision” from God.  A Christian mother killed her baby to give her child to God.  Parents have killed their children because they thought they were gay, for stealing to buy drugs, over a video game, to avoid paying child support, because of worry over gambling debts, because they were autistic and hard to care for, over a fight with a spouseAndrea Yates, Deanna Laney , and Lawshaun Harris (devout Christians) killed their children because “God told them to”.  Constance & Larry Slack (devout Christians – Jehovah’s Witnesses) beat their daughter to death for being disobedient.  A pastors son killed his mom and shot his dad. The list goes on an on and would take up volumes to list.  The truth is that family murder is ‘too awful to contemplate’, and yet we must contemplate this crisis and find ways to reach distressed families before any more lives are lost. [That's right, you pieces of sh!t, evade the issue and give make every excuse you can think of not to discuss the fact that she was killed for not wearing a hijab. You wouldn't want to offend any Muslims now, would you?]

It has been noted that: “Women who kill their children commonly cite God, the devil and other religious influences for their actions. Although the mothers are also often found to be severely mentally ill or psychotic, the recurring theme of religiosity begs the question: Is religion to blame?  Theologians, sociologists and psychiatrists generally say no. They say religiosity is a common theme among psychotics because hallucinations and delusions usually take familiar forms.  “Most of the people in nut houses are religious because most Americans are religious,” said Rodney Stark, a social sciences professor at Baylor University. “We know what causes schizophrenia and it isn’t going to church. It’s biochemical.” [P.s O. S.]One article about the Aqsa Parvez case had the title “Girl’s death puts Islam in hot seat“—if that is true, then all the other deaths must also put Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc. all in the hot seat. [No, because the girl killed was done so in the name of Islam.]  We have a serious problem in our society, and members of all faith communities need to work together to attempt to find solutions, and to educate our own faith communities in the actual teachings of our various belief systems.  Although individuals may attempt to justify their actions on the basis of some distortion of religious teachings, there is no justification for this behavior. [Like I said, a good first step would be to condemn, not just all religious based violence, but rather the issue at hand which you have been avoiding, namely the killing of Axa Parvez in the Islam.]

In attempting to see this as “their” problem and not “our” problem, and pointing the finger of blame elsewhere, we take away any chance of working effectively together to get at the root problems and stop this from ever happening again. [Who are "we" and "they" here? You're supposed to be speaking for and to the Muslim community! Not giving non-Muslims advice!]

Before MAS suggests that “The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action,” they might want to address the fact that it was the Islamic faith specifically that guided the murderer in this instance.

Oh, and

Hey, MAS! In the name of Axa Parvez, in case you forgot she’s the young woman who was murdered for not wearing the hijab, F^CK YOU!

45 responses

  1. Did you miss the part where it says, “Just this week, Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her father for not wearing hijab”? How can you read this and not see that it is a condemnation?

    December 16, 2007 at 2:05 am

  2. Yes, but they call it merely “a case of domestic violence,” which is missing the point. Everyone condemns domestic violence, even the strict Islamists, after all “it’s a religion of peace.” However, those same folks who speak out against violence toward women and children, will turn around and say something like:

    Now, if it’s a matter that involves obediance to the Noble Qur’an, which states:

    “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed…” (Qur’an 33:59)

    this is different, because the woman’s/child’s life is at stake.

    You are permitted to use violence… but you must show restraint. If you hit her, it can not leave a mark. However, if this does not work and the only way to save her life is through the use of extreme violence, this is permitted.
    —–

    Since the MAS has completely ignored the fact that the reasoning behind her murder is found in the Qur’an, they aren’t addressing the issue.

    And you have to admit, talking about Jonestown and Heaven’s Gate shows that the agenda is damage control, not expressing condemnation.

    December 16, 2007 at 2:59 am

  3. Pingback: Canadian Council of Imams: Alleged Murderer Mohammad Parvez = Success! « Dj Konservo

  4. Supporting what her brother, Muhmmad Shan, told the media a few days ago, from the National Post: Hijab may not have been at root of Aqsa Parvez’s death, say friends.

    Another article from City News quotes a friend of Aqsa Parvez’s named Babithiraa Thebathasn, as saying, “This whole Hijab culture, religion, it’s nothing to do with that. It’s all, like, child abuse.” (Source)

    December 16, 2007 at 8:17 am

  5. “You are permitted to use violence… but you must show restraint. If you hit her, it can not leave a mark. However, if this does not work and the only way to save her life is through the use of extreme violence, this is permitted.”

    Source…?

    December 16, 2007 at 12:30 pm

  6. Sergei, that wasn’t a direct quote. But that’s the type of thing one should not be surprised to hear.
    004.034

    SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

    Also:
    CFR: Islam: Governing Under Sharia

    I’m sure that Mr. Parvez would not have gone unpunished in a Muslim nation, he used too much force in his beatings. However, if he prayed for forgiveness and accepted some other trivial punishment, I’m sure that would more than suffice.

    December 16, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  7. Rasheed,

    That’s the quote you’re going with:

    It’s all, like, child abuse.”

    That’s pretty sleazy, dude. Rafiq Rokerya has a much more respectable reaction:

    “It’s a wake up call for us, for all Muslims, no matter which country, which cultre, which background you are,” said attendee Rafiq Rokerya. “We have a serious problem from the youth perspective and also from a senior perspective.”

    Anyway, all of things that have been said to dismiss the way women and children are treated in Islam has been said while Aqsa’s refusal to submit has been taken as the reason for her murder. The Canadian Imams were working with this assumption and the author of the article above was too. Most likely the hijab was one aspect of her non-conformity to Islam which, being a responsible Muslim, her father was compelled to enforce upon her.

    December 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm

  8. That’s pretty sleazy, dude.
    So quoting one of the dead girl’s friends (who I’m guessing is around her age as well) is sleazy. Got it.

    … being a responsible Muslim, her father was compelled to enforce upon her.

    A clean shaven Muslim who didn’t fulfill his own obligation of growing his beard is considered “devout” and “responsible”. Got it.

    December 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm

  9. trajan75

    That lady is hot!

    December 16, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  10. So quoting one of the dead girl’s friends (who I’m guessing is around her age as well) is sleazy. Got it.

    It’s not the quoting of her friend, it’s the attempt to deny the factor that Islam played in Aqsa’a murder. Was it abuse? Of course. However, that is not an explanation of what happened, nor is it an excuse for Islam.

    Read the Qur’an lately, Rasheed?

    I have, so don’t try to pull that denialist crap.

    A clean shaven Muslim who didn’t fulfill his own obligation of growing his beard is considered “devout” and “responsible”. Got it.

    Yes! It’s called a double-standard in which women are treated as inferior to men. That’s the point!

    December 16, 2007 at 4:21 pm

  11. The translation of that verse is extremely contentious. Here’s Ahmed Ali’s take on it:

    Men are the support of women as God
    gives some more means than others, and because
    they spend of their wealth (to provide for them).
    So women who are virtuous are obedient to God*
    and guard the hidden as God has guarded it.
    As for women you feel are averse,**
    talk to them suasively;
    then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them)
    and go to bed with them (when they are willing).***
    If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse
    for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.

    *Qawwam (root QWM) in line 1 does not mean lord or master, but provider of food and necessities of life, and through its form qaim, to take care of; and qanitat only means devoted or obedient to God, as in 2:116, 16:120, 33:35, etc. See Taj. Al-ghaib similarly means the unknown, unseen, and the hidden as here.
    **Nushuz: Apart from rising up, ill treatment, it also means aversion to an act, and has been used in this sense here as in 4:128 for men’s aversion.
    ***For the three words fa’izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original,† translated here ‘talk to them suasively,’ ‘leave them alone (in bed — fi’l madaje’),’ and ‘have intercourse’, respectively, see Raghib, Lisan al-Arab and Zamakhshari. Raghib in his Al-Mufridat fi Gharib al-Qur’an gives the meanings of these words with special reference to this verse. Fa-’izu, he says, means to ‘talk to them so persuasively as to melt their hearts.’ (See also v.63 of this Surah where it has been used in a similar sense.) Hajara, he says, means to separate body from body,‡ and points out that the expression wahjaru hunna metaphorically means to refrain from touching or molesting them. Zamakhshari is more explicit in his Kshshaf when he says, ‘do not get inside their blankets.’ Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, ‘the stud camel covered the she-camel,’ which is also quoted by Lisan al-’Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean ‘to strike them (women).’ This view is strengthened by the Prophet’s authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: “Could any of you beat your wife as you would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” There are other traditions in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying: “Never strike God’s handmaidens.”

    †This section can be a little difficult to follow if you don’t have the Arabic text, so here’s my attempt at a transliteration of lines 7-9 (written Arabic, especially Qur’anic Arabic, is quite a bit more complex than written Persian): …fa’iḍū hunna wāhjurū hunna fi’ al-maḍāji’i wāḍribū hunna…
    ‡It’s related to the well-known word Hijra, which refers to Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca to Medina.

    Another, and in my opinion better, translation that has recently been proposed for the contentious verb is simply “ignore them”.

    December 16, 2007 at 4:36 pm

  12. That’s a good reformist interperatation, I’ll have to look into those words.

    Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, ‘the stud camel covered the she-camel,’ which is also quoted by Lisan al-’Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean ‘to strike them (women).’

    So, wouldn’t that change the meaning of the word here:

    “Could any of you beat your wife as you would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?”

    Or is this a different word for “beat”? Also, aren’t there other places in which this word is used?

    Anyway, that’s a good interperatation, IMHO, but it can not be denied that Islam teaches male-dominance and Muslim superiority.

    A female apostate for a daughter, as the Canadian Imams specify, is a sign of disgrace for a Muslim father.

    December 16, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  13. Read the Qur’an lately, Rasheed?

    Yes. I read it quite often; in its original Arabic at that.

    I have, so don’t try to pull that denialist crap.

    That’s amusing, considering I haven’t denied anything. All I’ve done is quote statements made by people close to the situation who say that the girls decision to take of her hijâb was not the root cause of her death.

    If you think know the situation better than these people and are privy to evidence that has not been mentioned in the media (due to the publication ban imposed on the case), then I suggest you present your evidence to the contrary of what’s been reported thus far. Otherwise, everything you mention regarding the case is mere speculation.

    Yes! It’s called a double-standard in which women are treated as inferior to men. That’s the point!

    Really. I call it ignorance from a Muslim who may not be as devout and responsible as the media and those they quote are making him out to be. One being Muslim does not necessitate that one is knowledgeable of Islam and its tenets.

    December 16, 2007 at 6:09 pm

  14. That’s amusing, considering I haven’t denied anything. All I’ve done is quote statements made by people close to the situation who say that the girls decision to take of her hijâb was not the root cause of her death.

    Okay, I’ll grant you that. The root cause of her death was her father’s hands crushing her neck. Why did he do so?

    Because he said that he would kill her if she left the house:

    “She got threatened by her father and her brother. He said that if she leaves, he would kill her.”

    And why did she leave the house?

    Friends of the girl told the National Post that she had left the family home, where her brothers also lived with their families, about a week before the attack because of arguments with her father and brothers over her refusal to wear traditional Muslim garb, including the hijab.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162252

    So, if you think about it, she was kinda askin’ for it, right?

    Or maybe the source you quote is correct, what does the headline of that article read?

    Oh yeah:

    “Hijab may not have been at root of Aqsa Parvez’s death, say friends”

    Funny, I read the article and there was only mention of one denialist:

    Some classmates have said the girl’s insistence on not wearing the hijab led to intense family squabbles, but another friend told CanWestNews Service Saturday the traditional Islamic clothing was not a major factor and that other girls in the family did not wear the hijab.

    [...]

    Tahir insisted the girl was religiously observant but mainly had wanted to be more independent and “to get more out of life,” and had asked to move in with the Tahirs in the same neighborhood.

    “She was satisfied, she was relaxed that somehow her parents understood that this is what she wanted to do, and they didn’t push her to come home,” Tahir told CanWest News Service.

    Sounds to me like they were a loving family, and the Axa and her father shared an healthy relationship.

    Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Axa slipped and fell on her fathers hands just as he was in the process of clinching them into fists with all his might.

    You see! It’s all a big misunderstanding!

    December 16, 2007 at 6:42 pm

  15. Because he said that he would kill her if she left the house:

    “She got threatened by her father and her brother. He said that if she leaves, he would kill her.”

    And why did she leave the house?

    Friends of the girl told the National Post that she had left the family home, where her brothers also lived with their families, about a week before the attack because of arguments with her father and brothers over her refusal to wear traditional Muslim garb, including the hijab.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=162252

    The statements made by Aqsa Parvez’s schoolmate sound very typical of situations where there is conflict between parents and rebellious teenage children. Remove the references to “traditional Muslim garb” and “hijab” and you could very well be talking about anyone.

    Funny, I read the article and there was only mention of one denialist

    Amusing how you seem to forget the other statement made by Aqsa Parvez’s other friend, whose statement I quoted caused you to accuse me of being sleazy. So far, according to the various articles and reports on this incident, there are a few statements indicating that the hijâb, religion and culture did not play as big a role in her death as was initially thought.

    I would also give more consideration to Lubna Tahir’s statements considering that according to the report, Aqsa Parvez was staying at her home. I would assume that Tahir knows more about the situation than some girlfriends from school.

    December 16, 2007 at 7:20 pm

  16. The statements made by Aqsa Parvez’s schoolmate sound very typical of situations where there is conflict between parents and rebellious teenage children. Remove the references to “traditional Muslim garb” and “hijab” and you could very well be talking about anyone.

    That’s right. If there had been references to, say, a black boyfriend, then it would be a case of racism. If there had been reference to association with Jews, then that would be a case of anti-Semitism. But there were not, this is a case of Islamic oppresion of women.

    Amusing how you seem to forget the other statement made by Aqsa Parvez’s other friend, whose statement I quoted caused you to accuse me of being sleazy

    Actually, I said this:

    “It’s not the quoting of her friend, it’s the attempt to deny the factor that Islam played in Aqsa’s murder.”

    December 16, 2007 at 7:30 pm

  17. You miss the point. The article’s title mentioned “friends” saying that “Hijab may not have been at root of Aqsa Parvez’s death.” Although they quoted on “friend”, there have been more than one person quoted saying simillar in other reports.

    December 16, 2007 at 7:45 pm

  18. Yeah, Thebathasn said “It’s, like, child abuse”

    - No kidding. Actually, it’s, like, murder, and it was motivated by Islamic ideology.

    Regarding, the apologist, Lubna Tahir obviously didn’t know more about the situation than Axa’s friends at school. After all, her friends at school knew that Mr. Parvez would kill Aqsa, while Tahir is still in denial, even though Aqsa has already been killed.

    December 16, 2007 at 8:16 pm

  19. The way you twist things is rather comical.

    December 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  20. Even if it was about the hijab, does that mean that it was about Islam? The hijab is a cultural symbol. This may have been about an immigrant father getting upset about his daughter’s assimilation into a new culture.

    Also, why are you acting as though if somebody doesn’t say that she was killed because of Islam, then they are OK with her murder? It’s not an either/or situation.

    December 16, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  21. Also, why are you acting as though if somebody doesn’t say that she was killed because of Islam, then they are OK with her murder?

    Because, as you know, Canadian Imams held a news conference at the Islamic Society of North America Canada after the murder. One would think that this would be an opportunity for them to make some progress regarding the abuse of women, but that was not the case.

    “While stressing the sanctity of human life, denouncing the crime and describing it as a case of domestic abuse, religious leaders insisted on the hijab’s importance to parents – even if a daughter rejects it.

    If Muslims don’t face reality, they can not make progress.

    And of course the hijab is a cultural symbol, and, yes, this is about an immigrant father getting upset about his daughter’s assimilation into a new culture. In fact, it’s about an immigrant father murdering his daughter because of her assimilation.

    But, to be more accurate, it’s about a MUSLIM father murdering his daughter because she refused to submit to ISLAMIC cultural standards.

    Let’s call a spade a spade, here, shall we.

    December 16, 2007 at 8:45 pm

  22. You’re own quote says that they denounced the crime. How can you claim that they denounce the crime and yet are OK with it?

    December 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm

  23. The way you twist things is rather comical.

    How so? Tahir denys that there was even a problem. Aqsa is dead, and Muhammad Parvez has been charged with her murder, so it looks like Ms. Tahir might be mistaken.

    (By the way, how’s that Sufi-huntin’ coming?)

    December 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm

  24. Sergei, they ignore the major factor that pertains to them.

    If Parvez was a white Man living in the South and he murdered his daughter for dating a black guy, only the scum of the earth would say that racism wasn’t a factor and it’s merely a case of domestic violence. That’s what those Imams did when they ignored the role of Islamic standards and expectations of women.

    December 16, 2007 at 8:59 pm

  25. Sergei, all they had to do was say

    “Lighten up on the hijab, folks.”

    But they didn’t, in fact, they did the exact opposite.

    December 16, 2007 at 9:04 pm

  26. And how does that equate to them condoning the killing?

    December 16, 2007 at 9:10 pm

  27. They haven’t condoned they killing, but nor have they accepted the fact that it’s their interperation of Islam that led to the killing. To the contrary! They continue to preach that parents should force the hijab on their daughters against their will.

    But you know what, if they don’t want to change, fine. Islam will die out eventually, because ideologies that teach the subjugation of women and the supremacy of a particular group (e.g. Muslims as opposed to non-Muslims) is not fit to survive in Western societies based on equality and freedom.

    It’s their choice, adapt or go the way of bigots, racists, and other chauvinists.

    December 16, 2007 at 9:35 pm

  28. “They haven’t condoned they killing”

    Then why do you keep on acting as though they have? To wit:

    “The MAS Evades Instead of Condemning”

    “I was wondering the other day “Muslims Are Going to Condemn This… Right?” Today I see that the MAS has an answer for me:

    “Not really.

    “The MAS, instead of condemning the murder of a teenage girl by her father…”

    “you don’t care about her murder”

    “Like I said, a good first step would be to condemn, not just all religious based violence, but rather the issue at hand which you have been avoiding, namely the killing of Axa Parvez in the Islam.”

    “So, if you think about it, she was kinda askin’ for it, right?”

    “Sounds to me like they were a loving family, and the Axa and her father shared an healthy relationship.

    “Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Axa slipped and fell on her fathers hands just as he was in the process of clinching them into fists with all his might.

    “You see! It’s all a big misunderstanding!”

    And that’s just in this one thread.

    The Muslim community has condemned this. Stop saying they haven’t.

    December 16, 2007 at 9:54 pm

  29. The Muslim community condemned “domestic violence” but refuse to address the issue of the subjugation of women in Islam and how that practice factored in to this murder.

    Like I said, not even a “Lighten up on the hijab, folks” was offerred, and it doesn’t seem like the intend to.

    What the Canadian Imams did is equivalent to leaders in a Southern community condemning a murder but ignoring the racism that caused the murder. In fact, it’s equivalent to condemning the murder, and going on to preach more racism!

    December 16, 2007 at 10:02 pm

  30. I find it quite amusing how you manage to take an issue of a father trying to deal with a disobedient daugher (i.e., a domestic dispute) with things going too far, and turn it into an issue of “subjugation of women in Islam.”

    Like I said, not even a “Lighten up on the hijab, folks” was offerred, and it doesn’t seem like the intend to.

    I’ve already read numerous statements from Muslims saying that this should never have gone this far, including a few from MuslimMatters, a blog you linked to. Yet, as I commented there, you seem to turn a deaf ear to the truth when it’s mentioned to you.

    December 16, 2007 at 10:13 pm

  31. Rasheed, actually, MuslimMatters won’t let me post there for some reason.

    I want to respond to a comment

    By: Ghurabaa on December 16th, 2007
    at 7:35 pm

    Ghurabaa claims that

    Never in the history of Ummah a woman got killed over Hijab. I’m sure there is more to it.

    This is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever heard. MuslimMatters’ commenters are living in a fantasy world!

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22932467-2703,00.html

    December 16, 2007 at 10:19 pm

  32. “The Muslim community condemned “domestic violence” but refuse to address the issue of the subjugation of women in Islam and how that practice factored in to this murder.”

    Don’t confuse analyzing the murder’s cause and condemning the murder itself. If you want to discuss the cause, that’s one thing, but to claim, as you have been claiming, that the Muslim community has not condemned the murder itself is wrong.

    December 16, 2007 at 10:40 pm

  33. Sergei,

    I said that the MAS has an answer for me: “Not really”

    Because this was a case of domestic violence and the oppression of a young woman who did not want to submit to the demoralizing customs and practices of Islam.

    That’s what makes the statements by the clerics in Canada all the more reprehensible.

    December 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm

  34. Those are two separate issues. Silence on the second does not negate condemnation of the first.

    December 17, 2007 at 12:31 am

  35. Sergei,

    This woman understands:

    Farzana Hassan-Shahid, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC), who was at the vigil, said she was aghast that some imams (Muslim spiritual leaders) are propagating the use of hijab, saying women who wear them are more pious than those who don’t don it.

    “That is absolutely not true. The statement is creating false hierarchies in the community,” she said. “However, the hijab has become a very contentious issue and we need to face it upfront rather than prevaricate that perhaps this tragedy is a result of culture clash.”

    “We need to insist that this type of preaching that goes on in the mosque now has to stop,”
    she continued.
    http://www.mississauga.com/article/9515

    Now that is what I’m talking about! Kudos, to Farzana Hassan-Shahid!

    December 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  36. Ha! Sure, quote one who claims the hijâb is not obligatory. She only said that because it hurts her to be called less pious than Muslim women who wear the hijâb, despite the fact that not wearing it is an obvious sign of the weakness in a woman’s faith and piety.

    December 17, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  37. Rasheed,

    It’s called the 21st century, let us know when you are ready to join us.

    December 17, 2007 at 8:49 pm

  38. Konservo,
    I’m not saying that the second issue is not important, I’m saying that it’s distinct from the first issue, and you’re claiming that these people are OK with the murder of a teenage girl because they do not agree with you regarding the hijab is despicable. It would be like if I were to claim that, because you (to the best of my knowledge) don’t agree with me that our foreign policy helped lead to 9/11,* you must not have cared when those thousands of lives were lost and hundreds of thousands were shattered. In addition to being illogical, it’s hitting below the belt.

    *My position is significantly more complicated than this, but you get my point.

    December 18, 2007 at 2:13 am

  39. It would be like if I were to claim that, because you (to the best of my knowledge) don’t agree with me that our foreign policy helped lead to 9/11,* you must not have cared when those thousands of lives were lost and hundreds of thousands were shattered.

    No, it would be like if I disagreed with you that our foreign policy helped lead to 9/11, then you were to conclude that I didn’t care about said foreign policy (which you believe helped lead to 9/11).

    In this hypothetical, I would say that the deaths on 9/11 were tragic, and horrible, but if you were to present evidence of our foreign policy to me and show me how it helped lead to the attacks, I would deny that that had anything to do with it. Instead I would claim it was just a horrible, tragic attack.

    Incidently, I think that, of course our foreign policy helped lead to the attacks, it’s written in OBL’s Declarations of Jihad.

    December 18, 2007 at 2:31 am

  40. It’s called the 21st century, let us know when you are ready to join us.

    Amusing, and typical.

    December 18, 2007 at 9:15 am

  41. “No, it would be like if I disagreed with you that our foreign policy helped lead to 9/11, then you were to conclude that I didn’t care about said foreign policy”

    “Should”, not “would.” You have repeatedly denied that the Muslim community has condemned Aqsa’s murder.

    December 18, 2007 at 1:46 pm

  42. Sergei,

    Most have only condemned it as domestic violence, Rasheed for example, but refuse to address this specific case of domestic.

    This is what I was looking for:

    “We need to insist that this type of preaching that goes on in the mosque now has to stop,” she continued.

    http://www.mississauga.com/article/9515

    But, if you look on the CAIR website, which is were I found the article, they have cropped these words out. In other words, when they say that they condemn domestic violence and this murder (because that’s all it was, domestic violence) they are evading the point.

    The Imams knew why this happened, that’s why instead of talking about the problems women face in Islam, they reinforced the way of thinking that led to the murder in the first place. Namely:

    1) The parents are responsible for the children, and the actions of the children are indications of their up-bringing.

    2) Hijab = a must. As Rasheed says it’s a “fact that not wearing it is an obvious sign of the weakness in a woman’s faith and piety.”

    And it should be noted that, even if they thought that this wasn’t just about the hijab issue, it’s not a coincidence that the Canadian Imams chose to talk about the hijab.

    That’s why I say “Not really.”

    The one exception is Farzana Hassan-Shahid, but CAIR has refused to print her words. When more Muslims come out and honestly confront the issues, like Hassan-Shahid, then that will be a sign of hope for the Islamic faith. But the representatives of Islam are folks like our good buddy Rasheed here and the Canadian Imams who decided to lecture about the hijab at a conference supposedly dedicated to Aqsa’s death, then Islam will be judged for what it is.

    December 18, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  43. … it’s not a coincidence that the Canadian Imams chose to talk about the hijab.

    Those imams made their statements regarding the hijâb after the media reported that it was a possible reason behind the girl’s death, and after the media quoted unqualified individuals stating that the hijâb is not a religious duty upon women.

    Most have only condemned it as domestic violence, Rasheed for example, but refuse to address this specific case of domestic.

    That’s so ridiculous it’s almost hilarious.

    December 18, 2007 at 5:30 pm

  44. Rasheed,

    That my point. They imams were going with the hijab theory and instead of addressing the situation and condemning it, like Ms. Hassan-Shahid, they stressed the importance of the hijab!

    Also, you’re right, it is ridiculous, I am mistaken. You’ve shown no condemnation whatsoever! You’re nothing but an apologist!

    December 18, 2007 at 5:47 pm

  45. Also, you’re right, it is ridiculous, I am mistaken. You’ve shown no condemnation whatsoever! You’re nothing but an apologist!

    That’s almost as ridiculous as your previous statement.

    December 18, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.