In today's feature article at FrontPage, I discuss the murder of Aqsa Parvez and the attendant denial from Islamic leaders (news links in the original):
Aqsa Parvez is dead, and the main thing that many analysts want you to know about her death is that it had nothing to do with Islam.Aqsa Parvez was sixteen years old; her father has been charged with strangling her to death because she refused to wear the hijab. Shahina Siddiqui, president of the Islamic Social Services Association, declared: “The strangulation death of Ms. Parvez was the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian society and is blind to colour or creed.” Sheikh Alaa El-Sayyed, imam of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ontario, agreed: “The bottom line is, it’s a domestic violence issue.” Nor was this denial limited only to Muslims. Lorne Gunter said in the Edmonton Journal: “I see nothing uniquely Muslim in her death. If, indeed, her father killed her, her death is his doing, not Islam’s.”
Gunter explains: “Of course, other cultures are also prone to intergenerational clashes and Muslim fathers have so far shown no more predilection for murder than fathers of other cultures.” Quite so. Is, then, any linkage of Islam with the murder of Aqsa Parvez simply a manifestation of bigotry? Or is an examination of some elements of Islamic theology and culture necessary in order to try to prevent more young Muslim girls from being similarly victimized in the future?
Toronto radio host John Oakley has declared: “No one is on a witch hunt here trying to demonize an entire faith, but rather to get to the bottom of what seems to be a nasty little secret within a certain segment of the community; women are treated as second-class citizens. If that is, in fact, at the root of violence and abuse meted out by some Muslim men, it’s high time to take ownership and confront the elephant in the room….Denial is not an option.”Are women indeed treated as second class within Islamic culture? Certainly there is plenty of divine sanction for their being thus treated. The Qur’an declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282). It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3). It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).
Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).
Numerous hadiths even have Muhammad informing a group of women that their gender will populate hell: “Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).’”
When they ask him why, he explains, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.”
Muhammad’s assessment of their deficiencies comes from his Qur’an, as he explains further: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man? [cf. Qur’an 2:282, above]...This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?...This is the deficiency in her religion” (Bukhari 1.6.301). The idea that hell will be filled with more women than men occurs frequently in the hadith. According to Muhammad, “I looked at Paradise and saw that the majority of its residents were the poor; and I looked at the (Hell) Fire and saw that the majority of its residents were women” (Bukhari 7.62.126).
These traditions demonstrate why some Muslim men have so often fit the stereotype that they treat women with suspicion, disdain and derision. When they deal with women, they are dealing with a group that suffers from severe moral and intellectual deficiencies, not to mention all sorts of physical impurities in a religion obsessed with ritual cleanliness. Women are, consequently, headed for hell.
In light of all this, think for a minute about what Muslim spokesmen in Canada could be saying. They could acknowledge that the divine sanction given to the beating of disobedient women by Qur’an 4:34 has created a culture in which such abuse is accepted as normal. They could call for a searching reevaluation of the meaning and continued relevance of that verse and other traditional material that reinforces it, and call in no uncertain terms for Muslims to reject definitively its literal meaning, now and for all time to come. They could acknowledge the prevalence of honor killing in Islamic culture, which has no sanction as such in Islamic theology but nonetheless enjoys enough Islamic approval that the Jordanian Parliament a few years ago rejected on Islamic grounds attempts to stiffen penalties for it. They could call for sweeping reform and reexamination of the status of women in Islam.
For any of this to happen, Muslim leaders in Canada would have to adopt an unfamiliar and uncharacteristic stance of self-criticism, and Canadian leaders would have to abandon their ongoing infatuation with multiculturalism.
Unfortunately for Muslim women in Canada and elsewhere, neither seems likely. But Aqsa Parvez deserves no less.
As the Islamic community will try to hide this deed, the more the tale will spread.
Muslims will have the choice of these two thoughts.
1. Muslim fathers kill their daughters.
Or, 2. You can be killed by a Muslim family member for not wearing you required head scarf.
Since this is a domestic violance situation, why does it happen in Muslim households? Believe me the connection will be made.
Introspection by Muslims?
People should understand the implications of Becker's Denial of Death, which teaches that people argue emotionally for one position or another because they have made a wager on the position, a wager to the effect that their opinion will lead to more life. In a symbolic sense, to be wrong is to die.
How much more desperate to cling to a position are those for whom to be wrong (and to admit it) is to die, not symbolically, but physically, at the hands of family members and the community?
I am sorry if I have not explained this idea well. It seems to me central.
Islam is a psychological closed box that opens only with a boom.
“Lorne Gunter said in the Edmonton Journal: 'I see nothing uniquely Muslim in her death. If, indeed, her father killed her, her death is his doing, not Islam’s.'
Gunter explains: 'Of course, other cultures are also prone to intergenerational clashes and Muslim fathers have so far shown no more predilection for murder than fathers of other cultures.'"
-- from the article above
To this Robert, you add a "quite so."
At first I assumed the "quite so" was meant to be sarcastic, but the context shows my initial assumption was wrong. I think Gunter's brisk brooking-no-disagreement remark, delivered with a self-assurance that is without foundation, is false. In using such a thoroughly modern-millieish phrase as "intergeneratonal clashes" in attempting to subsume the particular horror of the Muslim family, with the Muslim male lording it over the females, telling them who they can see, when they can go out and with whom, and what they can wear, and read, and see, and do, and have done this, unchanged, since the beginning of Islam, that is not simply an immigrant's tale of coming to the New World and in the attempt of the children to canadianize, or americanize, there are always these "intergenreational clashes." That is not what is going on here. This is not some story right out of Rolvaag's Giants in The Earth (twinkling-eyed Norwegian pioneers on the Plains) or "I Remember Mama" (twinkly-eyed Russian Jewish tenement-house dwellers in Brooklyn) or "The Americanization of Edward Bok" (twinkly-eyed Dutch merchants in Philadelphia), und so weiter. No: the Muslim Experience is not, pace Gunter, the Immigrant Experience We All Share. It is quite a different matter, just as Islam, pace George Bush, is not just a "religion" and therefore, as Bush devoutly believes, worthy of instant respect. Only those who study the matter of Islam, of what the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira contain, and of how the texts have given rise to the tenets, and how those tenets have been put into practice, over 1350 years, by Muslims, can judge as to whether or not the Muslim father who strangles his daughter for refusing to wear the hijab is in fact prompted by Islam, or not. Gunter has not undertaken this study. He is not entitled to express, or even to have, an opinion, any more than someone who has not studied anthropogenic global warming has a right to an opinion.
What Gunter also overlooks, in assuring us that Muslim fathers are no more prone to violence than other fathers, is just how naturally violent Muslim societes are. The texts of Islam are full of fighting, full of making war, full of violence. Has he not read the Qur'an? Has he not read the Hadith? Does he not know the main vocation and avocation of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil? Does he not know of the reported cases of murder of girls, by their fathers, their uncles, their brothers, for having "dishonored" the family? And those are only the cases that are reported. How many cases, does he reckon, of intra-family rape or molestation take place that are not reported by the victim in Musliim societies, because the girl knows perfectly well that it is she who will be considered to have "dishnored" the family and it is she, not the brother or father or uncle who did whatever he did, who will be punished, quite possibly by death.
Whistling in the dark, is Lorne Gunter. He presumes to instruct us, and does so with an air of authority to which nothing he has written above, or elsewhere, suggests that he has earned.
This may be slightly OT, but I believe it has some relevance.
I have seen many references, here on JW and elsewhere, that a female wears the hijab (or burkha, or whatever) not just to protect her own modesty, but also to protect the men who see her from having impure thoughts and being tempted to sin. It is also clear that in many Moslem countries, homosexuality in the form of a man's desire for adolescent and pre-adolescent boys is common. Just note the "dancing boys" and the young lovers that accompany men in Afghanistan and elsewhere in central Asia. Also note the "boys like pearls" who await one in Paradise as an alternative to the 72 virgins. This being the case, why are not boys from roughly 9 to 16 (i.e. until they have noticeable beards) also required to cover themselves with a hijab or whatever to keep Moslem males from impure thoughts and temptations?
Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan of the Canadian Muslim Congress wrote:
"The deadly face of Muslim extremism"
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=162281
"Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse."
and,
"As for the imams and clergy of Canada’s mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for “violating Islam,” they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons."
and,
"Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having 'illegitimate children'."
Therefore, the Imams certainly think not wearing the hijab is “violating Islam”.
The dots can be connected.
Quote:
Toronto radio host John Oakley has declared: “No one is on a witch hunt here trying to demonize an entire faith, but rather to get to the bottom of what seems to be a nasty little secret within a certain segment of the community; women are treated as second-class citizens. If that is, in fact, at the root of violence and abuse meted out by some Muslim men, it’s high time to take ownership and confront the elephant in the room….Denial is not an option.”
End quote.
Christ. I can't believe that. How long will they pretend that appeasement works? It's not about "certain segment of the community", it's not a "common domestic violence" and hell it is about the entire goddamned faith! According to the sharia, HE DID NOTHING WRONG! She spoiled the "family honor" by "behaving shamefully" and islam allows parents and grandparents to kill their offsprings in such a case!
It's some 60 years from the WW2 end. Did people already forgot how it begun? If yes, take some history textbook and learn something about Hitler, Chamberlain and Churchill.
He presumes to instruct us, and does so with an air of authority to which nothing he has written above, or elsewhere, suggests that he has earned.
Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2007 9:39 AM
He joins the ranks of hundreds of self-appointed but utterly ignorant "experts" and "authorities" who make it their mission in life to defend islam and confuse the public with false and misleading "facts" about islam. These putative authorities should be prosecuted for malicious endangerment of the public for promulgating blatant lies about an insidious enemy.
This is just the beginning of what will become commonplace in our countries with the influx of millions of muslims. Eventually, such horror stories will be so common that they will hardly raise an eyebrow. Even when the average citizen realizes that they are indeed incidents peculiar to islam and those who practice it, they won't dare denounce them for fear of offending the gods of multiculturalism.
Regarding the citation by sounder about the central mosque of Montreal that young girls taking off a head covering risk being raped...
That is unbelievable! If they risk being raped it is by their own co-religiionists...not from their Christian, Buddhist, etc neighbors.
So according to Muhammad there are more women than men in hell and that is why women are presumed to be more evil than men and thus are to be allocated fewer human rights on account of their natural deficiencies.
What about this 72 virgins thing then? If there are more men than women in paradise it is impossible to have 72 virgins for every man unless they are shared. Since losing one's virginity is a one off affair, that rules out the sharing thing unless there is no sex in the Muslim paradise. That must be it, there's no sex. You can look at the menu but you can't order. How perfect.
I much prefer Muslim hell then, where I can enjoy the sweet comfort of the company of more intelligent, well educated, self-assured, emotionally mature, sexually confident and playful women than there are men.
Islamic societies will perpetually fail to achieve a standard of living on a par with the non-Muslim world for the gender apartheid reason alone.
I have an old friend that lives in Toronto. Apparently this incident is dominating the local news. Some story is being circulated that the father was "not that religious".
Comments from the audience?
"Whistling in the dark, is Lorne Gunter. He presumes to instruct us, and does so with an air of authority to which nothing he has written above, or elsewhere, suggests that he has earned." Posted by Hugh
This is not the first time, columnists have 'whistled in the dark', putting their spin on things.
Why would they not listen to Muslims themselves, like Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan and Salim Mansur before displaying such ignorance, publically?.
Salim Mansur in the Toronto Sun, wrote:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2007/12/15/4725862.php
"News stories of Muslims -- and from the Muslim world -- continue to be deplorable and to reveal how terribly the malady of a broken civilization is consuming its own people, while threatening the freedom and security of others.
In the Greater Toronto Area a Muslim father, in a rage over his teenage daughter not complying with his fundamentalist belief -- the wearing of prescribed garments for women in public -- allegedly strangled her to death.
This is the latest of seemingly endless atrocities committed by Muslims, and from the Muslim world, with the most vulnerable victims being women and children.
The alleged cold-blooded murder of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was not like any other crime that cuts across ethnic and faith boundaries, as Muslim apologists in Canada will do their best to characterize it.
The murder was prompted by an ideology of bigotry and terror masked as a faith-tradition -- an ideology of radical Islamism at war with the modern world of freedom and democracy.
The fear of this perverted ideology and its fanatical promoters silences most Muslims, regardless of their numbers in society, for they fear that speaking out against this ideology might place them in greater jeopardy within their community and with those who claim its leadership.
Then there are Muslim organizations -- such as the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) -- in free societies such as Canada. Their deafening silence in condemning Muslim violence against Muslims and non-Muslims alike is revealing of their true nature.
These are front organizations for global radical Islamism making apologies for their ideological brethren, and directing polemics against the West for victimizing Muslims and undermining Islam.
Moreover, they are fraudulent in their claims of representing Muslims in general as the CIC does. The fact is, on the contrary, most Muslims in Canada and elsewhere in the West left their native lands to escape from unmitigated cruelty, heartlessness and hypocrisy of Muslim rulers and religious leaders.
But these organizations are sinister in their objectives of taking full advantage of free societies and subverting their institutions for the purpose of undermining freedom and democracy.
For instance, Canadians have never heard from or witnessed Muslim organizations such as the CIC publicly mobilizing Canadian Muslims in denouncing suicide-bombings, honour killings of hapless women, genocide on display in Darfur and persecution of dissident Muslims in the Arab-Muslim world.
Instead, as fraudsters they have developed the swindler's art of blackmailing free societies as the CIC has done by filing complaints with the Human Rights Commissions (HRC) federally, and in Ontario and British Columbia, against Maclean's magazine and one of its contributors, Mark Steyn.
The complaints are frivolous, claiming Maclean's defamed Canadian Muslims by publishing some writings of Steyn as excerpts from his best-selling book, America Alone.
But the greater frivolity is the HRC's willingness to hear the complaint from an organization whose president, Mohamed Elmasry, is on public record in Canada for the suggestion -- though later retracted under duress -- that Israelis in general over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for Palestinian suicide-bombers.
The murder of Aqsa Parvez and of countless other women among Muslims will continue not merely because Muslims cower in silence in their fear of radical Islamists, but also for the apathy of the Western public and politicians supinely appeasing and accommodating Muslim organizations such as the CIC."
So according to Muhammad there are more women than men in hell and that is why women are presumed to be more evil than men and thus are to be allocated fewer human rights on account of their natural deficiencies.
What about this 72 virgins thing then? If there are more men than women in paradise it is impossible to have 72 virgins for every man unless they are shared.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at December 19, 2007 10:20 AM
***
No, no. You fail to understand. To a woman, the idea of being one of Mohammad's, or bin Laden's, or even just Rage Boy's perpetual virgins IS hell. Ick. Ick. Ick. It's the same place, this islamic heaven and hell -- it just depends on one's perspective.
When the bombs go off in trains and buses, or when they fly jets into buildings, the Islamo-agit props come out and tell us its just a 'tiny-tiny minority of extremists' and that Islam has nothing to do with it, that we can't tar the whole 1.5 gazillion Muslims with the same brush and so on and 'Islam is not a monolith' etc etc.....
But if you draw a cartoon of Muhammad, the whole 1.5 gazillion ummah Islamiyah will come out throwing hissy fits, burning cars and embassies, trying to kill totally innocent Westerners and their clerics will call for jihad with every kind of weaponry against the kuffar...
Me thinks there are some things that need to be sorted before we allow any more Muhammedans to migrate behind enemy lines.
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/19/we-got-mail/
After everything he has seen, heard and experienced, why does Tarek Fatah continue to be a muslim? He already gets death threats. He should go the final step and just leave islam altogether.
"Or is an examination of some elements of Islamic theology and culture necessary in order to try to prevent more young Muslim girls from being similarly victimized in the future?"
A fair question. But I believe that there are some more effective ways how to prevent more young Muslim girls from being similarly victimized in the future.
To begin with, let's hang the murderer. He strangled the kid, there is no doubt he did it, so hanging him seems to be somehow appropriate.
When this is done, let's check if application of islam in a daily live is in some aspect dangerous to human rights, religious tolerance, if it teaches hate towards specific groups of people, like every non-muslim, if it teaches sexistic discrimination, etc. If we find it does, well, what shall we do? Like, outlaw it?
Here's a small piece from a Op-Ed by the CIC's Dr.Elmasry and Elmasry spew hatred towards Christians in canada because they are ignorant to the Rights Christians have in Islamic nation where they get thereown Courts , so Elamsry demands Sharia law in canada because Islam allows Christians to be treated differently.
Right Elmasry.....but canada doesn't start off by a special tax for Muslims or laws to stop any expression of islam or to ban non-Christians from a Holy city , or behead and flog people even after a perceived sin or alleged crime.
If Dr.Evil at the cIC is so hell bend on Justice than lets apply Sharia law to every Muslims arrested in canada for crimes , this way we can behead just as many Muslims as islam murders and behead innocent civilians unders special courts for Infidels.
**************************************************
By Islamic standards alone, Nigeria is not qualified to apply Sharia Law. It has far too many challenges and liabilities that must be addressed in every sphere of life -- social, political, economic -- before Sharia could be applied or administered as it was intended.
In a country whose self-described "democracy" falls far short of minimal equality, the numerical superiority of Muslims in the north can (and probably will) dictate that Sharia is always implemented there, regardless of how improperly; even now, so-called Islamic courts are springing up everywhere. These courts are supposed to discipline only errant Muslims and guarantee Christians the right to be tried in secular (non-Muslim) courts. But it is the Christians who have emerged as the most vehement critics of Sharia, many asserting that its blanket application harms Muslims too.
Where Sharia has been implemented in Nigeria, life has already undergone radical changes. New women-chauffeured, women-only taxis have appeared and male taxi-drivers are barred from taking any female passengers. Segregated educational, medical, and public transport facilities have also been introduced, and strict prohibitions have been instated on the public consumption of alcohol.
Kaduna, where the Miss World Pageant was almost held, has been divided into warring zones along religious and ethnic lines for some time. In the absence of a highly developed society, the application of Sharia has clearly done more harm than good and Nigeria is the best "worst" example. Many of its citizens are poor and homeless, yet no one really cares about them.
And until a bizarre news story from Kaduna (told only from a western perspective) hit the headlines, few people would even have known the city's name. But nearly everyone has heard the word "Sharia."
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com )
**************************************************
Just once I'd like to hear a female Muslim in canada praise all the benefits of being chattle
and forced to wear burkas and never learn to drive so they can escape their abusive Jihad sharia daddy dearest.
Islam itself discourages speculation (ijtihad ended in 12th century wa it?). It's therefore highly unlikely that the sort of self-criticism suggested above will take place. Nevertheless, we kuffars should try and understand for our own protection.
When one group is not safe - Muslim women for example - then nobody is.
Greetings:
Short of doing a Vulcan mind-meld with the female victim's father, I don't think we really know the actual cause or causes of her murder. It could be disobedience to her father's religion or it could even be something incestuous with the wearing of the hijab being the excuse rather than the reason. And as my father told me more times than he should have had to: "The difference between a reason and an excuse is that an excuse is a bad reason."
Certainly Islam should be considered an enabler. But there may be other drivers in the murdering father's psyche. An interesting article on the "tribal" culture of Islam is at this link:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1813
The Middle East's Tribal DNA
by Philip Carl Salzman
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008
I wrote an essay on a related issue, that of the German Muslim woman who tried to divorce her husband because he beat her:
Women in Islam
'Some story is being circulated that the father was "not that religious".'
Apparently, he was religious enough.
"What about this 72 virgins thing then?"
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates
I like to think that the figure of 72 is the total number of virgins in heaven. At the present population of heaven, that means a wait of maybe 9000 years before your first one, and a similar wait between each virgin. The number of boys-like-pearls isn't specified, so maybe there are more of them, and the wait isn't so long. While waiting one can watch "I Love Lucy" re-runs, or play Free-Cell.
Asserting that this incident is the result of "domestic violence" begs the question: What was the reason for the violence? Why was the father so outraged that he strangled his own daughter to death? Her refusal to comply with the tenets of Isalm, plain and simple. They can spin it and tap dance around it all they want, but ultimately Islam is the cause of her death, you know, that "peaceful" religion none of us infidels seem to understand!