When judging whether or not an act has a justifiable religious motivation, it is imperative to understand that religion. In the case of Islam, it is imperative that one read and understand the Qur'an,our holy book. It is not acceptable to judge the actions of groups of people (no matter how large the group is) and say "this is sanctioned by the religion". No reasonable person would claim that bombing an abortion clinic is sanctioned by Christianity or that it is a part of Jesus' message because there is no justification found in the Gospels and New Testament. Likewise, there is NO Qur’anic justification for honor killings or revenge killings; please check this out yourself and if I am wrong show me the surah (passage) in the Qur’an that contradicts me.
So, it is quite true that this beheading had nothing to do with Islam or the Muslim religion. The Qur'an, as the word of God transmitted through Mohamed to the people of Arabia, was quite progressive on women's rights: such as granting women the right to marry only men of their choice and the right to divorce a bad or incompatible husband. Any government that prevents a woman from exercising these rights is therefore un-Islamic, even if the country is majority-Muslim. Government/legal sanction does not indicate religious sanction. By keeping silent or allowing these anti-Islamic laws to persist in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, the Sheikhs, Imams and Ayatollahs are going against God's laws which are quite clear in the Qur'an. This is important because in the Buffalo case, the suspected motive for the accused husband was that his wife wanted a divorce and, in America, she has the right to initiate these proceedings. So current American law follows the Qur’an; but current law in the couple’s native Pakistan, does not. So when Susan Jacoby states: “Until the separation of church and state began to take hold in the West (slowly and unevenly) after the Enlightenment, there was really very little difference between the way women were dealt with under traditional Christian teaching and the laws of nation states. In countries where there is no separation of church and state, including many Islamic theocracies, there are still no "women's rights" that violate traditional Islamic law” she clearly is misunderstanding that although there may be no clear ‘separation of church and state’ in a particular government, this does not lead to the conclusion that all laws of such a government are sanctioned by the majority religion of the people. Islam gives women rights that their governments have taken away. In addition, religious leaders who are governmental appointees or who are in service to a government have a dual allegiance to God and that government. How do we know who they are speaking for when they make a religious pronouncement? Separation of church and state protects the religion by keeping it free of the state’s influence as much as it protects the people from subjection by a religion contrary to their own beliefs.
Does the Qur'an allow killing? The only justifiable homicide is to protect yourself from an attacker who is intent on killing you and/or your defenseless family and this is only in the case of imminent danger, not pre-emptive homicide due to fear that someone might kill you or yours. The Qur'an is quite clear on this. Why is the Qur'an clear on this? Because honor killings and revenge killings and other violent crimes of passion were part of the human condition in pre-Islamic Arabia. In fact, these types of killings are part of the general human condition in the modern Western world in societal groups operating under tribal patterns: (1) street gangs in inner city America from a variety of cultural/ethnic backgrounds including those of Anglo/European descent (Caucasians), (2) the so-called Mafia including non-Italian groups in North America and Eurasia, (3) drug cartels operating in the Americas and elsewhere, to name a few.
In Mohamed's time women converted to Islam in great numbers because conditions for a Muslim woman and an Islamic marriage were overwhelmingly better for her and her children. Muslim women owned their own property, were educated to read and write, ran businesses and kept control of their own money (all delineated in the Qur'an) over a thousand years before these rights were conferred on Western women in recent times. Under Islam a women is NEVER considered anyone's property and her religious destiny is her own responsibility. Again, some governments in majority Muslim countries have taken some or all of these rights away from women.
So there are cultural problems in the Islamic world and it is a travesty that Islamic rights have been taken away from women in many majority-Muslim countries since these rights are divinely mandated. The true problem is ignorance. In addition to the marriage/divorce rights I mentioned above, it is also stated in the Qur’an that there is ‘no coercion/compulsion in religion’. Not only does this mean that a Muslim cannot coerce another person into becoming Muslim, it also means that a Muslim cannot compel a fellow Muslim (including their own wife or husband) to follow what they believe to be true Islam. Each individual is personally responsible for their own salvation. It is incumbent upon each Muslim to read and understand the Qur’an and follow their conscience. Quoting from Jacoby’s article: “Mrs. Hassan use to wear the traditional hijab covering her hair, but later abandoned the custom.” The implication is that Mr. Hassan objected; as Jacoby further states: “It is certainly possible that this case involved a conflict between the culture into which both members of the couple were born and the culture in which they lived in the United States--specifically, a clash between the role of women in American society and in majority Islamic countries.” Unless he tells us, we can only guess what was in Mr. Hassan’s head; a fact that Jacoby, herself, asserts later in the article. Whether or not Mr. Hassan objected to the way in which his wife practiced Islam does not tell us anything about the practice of Islam. As I stated above, Mrs. Hassan is responsible for her own salvation under Islam; it is not Mr. Hassan’s responsibility.
So when Jacoby concludes her article with “But the comments of Muslim authorities saying this crime has nothing … to do with religion …certainly do not address urgent issues about the position of women within some quarters of Islam or the uneasy position of many immigrant women and girls caught between the most traditional, repressive Muslim religious values and the secular liberties that the United States affords its female citizens” she is condemning Muslim religious values when she should be condemning the cultural values of these immigrants. Jacoby perpetuates the misunderstanding of Islam as being indistinguishable from the cultural practices of people who happen to be Muslim when in fact Islam and these cultures are separate and distinct. Why does Jacoby dismiss “the mainstream Muslim leaders who were quick to say that this murder has nothing to do with "real" Islam”? They were absolutely correct! No religious leader, whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim, wants to admit that domestic violence occurs within their congregation; however, it is important that our religious leaders are not silent about the problem within their own communities. Domestic violence, abuse and murder are not sanctioned by the holy books of these religions, no matter how many members commit these crimes; fortunately we are talking about a minority of members. So it was imperative that the “mainstream Muslim leaders” denounce this crime and it is equally imperative that action is taken by our religious leadership to prevent future crimes like this one to the fullest extent possible.
So absolutely, Muzzamil Hassan, was guilty of extreme domestic violence when he beheaded his wife, Aasiya Hassan. I believe this was about control: she was exercising her God-given and state-sanctioned right to divorce her husband and he permanently stopped her or punished her (I/we can't know his true motivation). There is no justification for his actions within the Qur’an and it is irresponsible journalism to suggest that his actions were religiously motivated and perpetuate the stereotype of the violent Muslim male operating under the sanction of Islam. Practicing Muslims pray for peace five times a day. We don’t know what was in Mr. Hassan’s head, but we do know that there was, is and never will be an Islamic justification for this atrocity.
First published online by Diane Allen in response to Patriarchal Religion, Domestic Violence And A Beheading In Buffalo by Susan Jacoby Washington Post/Newsweek On-line on Feb 25, 2009See the article here: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/02/beheading.html~~~~~
Diane
American Islamic Fellowshipblog@americanislamicfellowship.com
