With even the BBC deigning to notice the beheading of a Muslim woman by her New York husband – you read it here first – it’s fair to wonder whether we risk falling into the trap of Orientalism, otherizing a broad swath of people based on commonly shared characteristic. After all, do not Western men of all faiths batter and even murder their wives and children? Are we being fair, or discriminatory?
The latter, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Mustapha Carroll:
(Carroll) said he worries that terms like “honor killing” may stigmatize the Islamic community. “We (Muslims) don’t have the market on jealous husbands … or domestic violence.”
But taking CAIR at face value on such issues has proven problematical.
The Middle East Quarterly’s Phyllis Chesler tries to be a little more analytical. Her conclusion?
Trust your eyes.
So, non-Muslim American men kill their wives and children in a more patriotic way? Honor killings are worse than other kinds of domestic violence that lead to death? It’s better to unexpectedly beat your spouse to death one day in a fit of anger??? I guess I’m unwilling to agree with the underlying assumption that some gender-based murder is worse than other gender-based murder. So don’t see this as an apology for the horror that is honor killing (as I’m sure a number of you will immediately assume).
Call it domestic violence or honor killings, deconstruct it all you want, the end result is the same–society devalues the personhood of women in ways that makes it commonplace to treat them as property–property to be disposed of at will.
I find abhorrent the logic–from any culture or religion–that justifies any violence against women as the natural order or God-given way things are. A 13 year old girl was found murdered not far from where I live this past weekend–there will be no justice for her because she is one of the many undervalued women our society throws away each year.
I also question the assumption that a sense of “honor” doesn’t underlie other forms of gender violence. A man who murders his wife and children because of adultery, or because he has lost his job and can no longer support them, is as much making an expression of a cultural assumption about men’s natural governance over women and children as any of the cases described above.
Further, the assertion that abusers are reviled in our society is a strangely optimistic one. There are plenty of communities in our country where women are perceived as ‘needing to be kept in their place’ or abusers are described as being provoked or being vindicated by the woman’s perceived behavior (I’ve had to intervene with no small number of college students who have shown up in classes after a beating from a loved one–and most thought it was their fault). The recent Chris Brown-Rhianna case illustrates some of this. There are any number of batterers who continue to live well in the public eye.
Finally, by her own admission, there are not statistics kept on religious faith of domestic violence killers–so any statements of a so called “quantitative nature” that she makes are not based on numbers, but her assumptions.
I guess I’d like to see more indignation about those over 21,000 women killed.
As per usual–it’s all about our “lyin’ eyes.”
Laurie/
Everything you say is true on it’s face, and you get no quarrel with me regarding your conclusions. But (and I don’t use the word to mean “disregard all previous”) what I think delineates “honor” killings from the other examples/statistics you spotlight is that one is an example of a “formally institutionalized” custom sanctioned by an authoritative religion and reinforced by custom. The other 21,000 you mention–not so much. In those cases the entire legal and civil community holds such acts in abhorrence, and in terms not only of how the legal, official, secular government apparatus views the act, but as to how the civic culture at large–to include the Christian religion which forms the basis for this community in the Western world–views the act–which is to say disapprovingly.
By contrast, the Islamic world–in both philosophical and Religious outlook as well as customary law–tends to justify (and by extension encourage) such activities with the imprimatur of official sanction in all too many lands where Islam is the ruling culture and government.
Yeap…you scooped ‘em on that one. Now Pakistan has cut a deal on Burqa Law.
Laurie, please explain “formally institutionalized” to me…I’m missing something.
Laurie, also please explain just exactly what an “authoritative religion” is…and while your at it we’ll discuss “honor” killings.
Sorry Lex, I don’t want to start a debate on your blog…not my style, but Laurie is welcome to come to my crib and make her point.
Laurie, while you’re abhorring that “society devalues the personhood of women in ways that makes it commonplace to treat them as property–property to be disposed of at will,” may I ask your position on abortion? How many of those children would have been women, and just who is making the decision to dispose of them? And no, I’m not defending domestic violence in any way shape or form, nor am I saying you are – I’m just pointing out that if you want to talk about real domestic killing in quantity, it’s pretty hard to beat the American woman since the 1960’s.
Ironic how the internet responds? See the IMMS advert below….
Gosh…buy a bride…who’d a thunk it?
Laurie: I abhor violence towards women. I was raised that way. The difference is that in the Muslim faith this act is not only codified by religious law, but also by custom and law. Here, we still see spousal abuse as a vestige of less civilized times, not as a matter of social custom or civil law, and especially not by religious law. I understand your point, but it does not connect to what Lex is saying. Indeed, if you think on it, Lex’s approach to the subject implies that this act is abhorent and evil for all faiths, and not to be tolerated.
My take on this is that the Christian religion itself and those governments founded by majority-Christian populations oppose the abuse of women. The same cannot be said of Islam and of those countries where the governments were formed by majority-Moslem populations.
In all fairness for Laurie:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/east_timors_first_female_dictator?utm_source=tvtheonioncom
b2
There is no tactful way to deal with this subject. This having been said, “Time, to move out and say it!” This is not acceptable behavior for any reason. When we went in to Saudi Arabia, during Persian Gulf I, the Royal Family expected our troops to comply with all of the Muslim Law of the Region (Caliphate). The Royal Family Representative confronted the Commanding General with their issues during the build up for war. The issues included all of the National Law, Regional Law and the Religious Law. The real “flash points” were the women driving the trucks and the chaplains. The Commanding General pivoted and looked at the Royal Family Representative, eye-to-eye, with a question. It went something like this, We came as a Force and we’ll leave as a Force. You don’t want our women truck drivers or chaplains. Well, if they don’t come in, we don’t come in. What is your choice?
This tells us a great deal about this subject, the Muslim Faith understands the concept of differing Sources of Law. In The United States, The Sharia or Muslim Law and Legal System does not override the Civil / Criminal Legal system of both the State / Federal Government. If we think about it, The Constitution gives us religious freedom, this concept of respect by the faith to civil/criminal laws is the right one.
This concept of “honor killing” is wrong, it violates our Criminal Laws. I won’t even begin to suggest options for consequences. I believe this man has committed a premeditated MURDER.
b2/
I tell ya, that news report is EXACTLY why I’ve been agitating for an all-female fighting force for years–land, sea and air. Leaves us more time to contemplate REALLY IMPORTANT things like: Bass or Guinness?
Murder is murder. The husband should be given a fair trial and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty available in that locale (preferably Texas).
I think the quotation from General Napier regarding the practice of sati (widow burning) in India applies.
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
The only thing that I can add to that, is if his lawyer tries to interject religion and culture as justification for the crime, the lawyer should join him on the gallows.
And having fired his shot, Laurie is nowhere to be seen. Talk about your troll.
The issue at hand is not whether individual men (or women) are violent or abusive. The issue is what society views as right or wrong. And let me tell you, there is something fundamentally wrong with Muslim societies. Of course, the same is true of ‘urban’ US ‘civilisation’, but in different ways.
Is something wrong? Can it (ever) be justified? What is the punishment/consequences of such wrong actions? These are questions that society as a whole has to ask and answer – and I believe you will find that the answers are radically different between a Muslim society and a (say) Christian society.
Holy cow, Laurie, that is the most wonderful case of moral equivalence I’ve seen in a while. But I’ve been away, been busy, kind of.
I’m just going to wander off to find another post. Pretend I’m Ferdinand, sniff the flowers.