Statement on the Alleged Beheading by Muzzammil Hassan, CEO and Founder of U.S. Muslim TV Network Bridges TV
Since the right-wing media have insisted on bringing this tragic but culturally irrelevant story to light, we at Save the Humans have reluctantly decided to respond officially for the public record. This will be our one and only mention of this story, after which time we will return to our regularly scheduled Muslim news, arts, and entertainment. (Please note that the Buzkashi meet-up is still scheduled for Saturday evening. Please let us know if you are able to provide the headless goat carcass.)
The story as it now stands is that Muzzammil Hassan, the CEO and founder of Bridges TV, responsibly alerted law enforcement that his beloved wife, Aasiya Hassan, had been justly punished for the disrespectful act of filing for divorce against him. It is only matter of time before those in the media use this alleged expression of one man’s religious rights for their own twisted purposes, to depict Muslims as barbarous, or worse.
After the events of September 11th, 2001, Western society has unleashed an assault of religious intolerance and persecution never before seen on the world stage. Those who claim ignorance of this assault would do best to open their eyes. Every week, we experience the privilege of witnessing unheralded Muslims helping to rid the world of less-than-innocent civilians in the name of Allah, but the immediate response has always been: they are the bad ones; it is their religion that is wrong; that unrecognizable, splattered body over there wearing the shredded-up backpack, he is the bad one. Unfortunately, we as Muslims have become accustomed to the abuse. It is for this reason we now feel compelled to speak.
The English-language Bridges TV was founded for the very purpose of “fosterin[ing] a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations”. We have long respected its daily news coverage, lively debates on current events, and childrens’ programming such as Akbar and Me, an animated series featuring a Muslim boy and his Jewish pig, promoting peace and unity among all religions.
It is time for moderate Muslims like ourselves to speak up when this kind of tragic misunderstanding takes place. It is time we as a society severed the connection between Islam and Islamic beheadings. And, perhaps most of all, we try just a little harder than we did the day before to accept one another as we progress on this glorious path to the afterlife. Allahu Akbar. See you on the airplane.
22 comments
Sarcasm is expressive and entertaining, but not in itself usually informative. So, I am left wondering what the specific connection is between beheading in this situation and Islam as a set of religious dogmas contained in “holy scripture,” the Qur’an. Suggestions?
We don’t know the details yet. The only connection so far is that Islamists seem to have an above-average affinity for beheadings over atheists and those of the other religions. The sarcasm in this piece, though, was directed at the Islamic “moderates” who not only see no connection between Islam and violence, but who also are often not really moderate.
Jesus Christ you’re pathetic, are you still swallowing that “Islam is evil!” pill everybody else coughed up three years ago? Well I guess Western democracies are evil for allowing this to happen within their borders, and Christianity complicit. Not to mention that Amish school shooter. There is as much fucked up murder, torture, religious persecution, and violence inside US borders any day of the week as a place like Lebanon - maybe that’s why you have to export all your excess murder to Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Yes, Islam is evil. Any other questions?
How about: “Is Christianity evil?” The answer to that one is “yes”, too. Both require blind faith, and a reliance on irrational thinking methods for action in the world. It’s not exactly a safe policy to base your actions in reality on thought that has no basis there.
But as far as one’s safety around Christians and Muslims, you’d have to be blind as a left-wing lunatic to think there isn’t a special relationship that Muslims have with violence in the name of religion. And I’m factoring in all the Christian abortion clinic bombings.
>>Yes, Islam is evil. Any other questions?
>>How about: “Is Christianity evil?” The answer to that one is “yes”, too.
Boy howdy - I remember back when your big thing was Objectivism and Rand. She HATED collectivist thinking - she hated people being judged by country or culture or religion rather than individual merit, right?
Fact is, more than a billion Muslims wake up every day with a yawn, pack their kids off to school, work a full day, come home and watch some boob tube - and all this without strapping on a bomb or beheading anyone. Same goes for Christians.
>>you’d have to be blind as a left-wing lunatic to think there isn’t a special relationship that Muslims have with violence in the name of religion.
People DO have this weird tendency to get violent after years of having wars imposed on them by foreign powers - or dictators sponsored by foreign powers (see Saudi Arabia, Egypt, 1980s Iraq, et c) - I would guess your culture would be violent and backwards too if Soviet troops had been occupying Akron, OH for the last decade and propping up a puppet regime.
As to religion being the CAUSE of violence, that’s just silly. It has many causes and religion is just a post-facto tool to justify it.
>>Both require blind faith, and a reliance on irrational thinking methods for action in the world
This is not true. Please read William James’ The Variety of Religious Experience - humans are hardwired to see God, and you’re irrational if you see something and don’t believe in it.
My favorite reference to this was in the Reuters story: “N.Y.-based Bridges TV which launched in 2004 with a mission to show Muslims in a more positive light, …” I believe the current catch-phrase is “Fail!”
(You got that, Jason? You’re being _collectivist_ for rejecting Islam.)
Dammerung: “. . . humans are hardwired to see God, and . . .”
Two questions arise:
(1) What do you mean by “God”? A definition would be helpful–that is, would help tie this idea to reality.
(2) When you say “see God,” are you speaking of sensation, perception, or concept-formation (of the concept “god”)?
>>(1) What do you mean by “God”? A definition would be helpful–that is, would help tie this idea to reality.
I don’t really have a useful definition. It’s bigger than you can get words around. The tao that you can talk about isn’t the eternal Tao. You can’t hold the ocean in a thimble no matter which way you turn it.
>>(2) When you say “see God,” are you speaking of sensation, perception, or concept-formation (of the concept “god”)?
This I can’t explain either. It was a perception, but it wasn’t any of the five senses. It’s as though there exists in humans a faculty that allows them to perceive the “spiritual” world, but it has atrophied through lack of use.
For the record, I’m neither Christian nor Muslim but it is a hallmark of collectivist thinking to stereotype everyone in a group based on the actions of certain individuals.
>>(You got that, Jason? You’re being _collectivist_ for rejecting Islam.)
He certainly is.
What is collectivism except the denial of individuality that comes from lumping people into stereotyped groups based on only a small piece of information?
You say, Muslims don’t drink alcohol. But Bektashi Muslims and Turkish Muslims in general are big fans of raki. You are denying their individuality by making inaccurate stereotypes of Islamic behavior.
You say, Muslims endorse violence against women. That denies the individuality of Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel prize winning Muslim scholar and human rights activist.
You say, Muslims are inclined to murderous violence. That denies the individuality of over a BILLION Muslims who wake up every day and hurt no one.
There are upstanding and wicked Muslims, so Muslims should be judged as individuals and not collectively. There are upstanding and wicked Christians, so Christians should be judged as individuals and not collectively. There are upstanding and wicked Objectivists, so Objectivists should be judged as individuals and not collectively.
All it takes is media framing to make you abandon your principles and immediately return to collectivist thinking.
You see a Muslim who beheaded his wife.
I see a friendless, loser Nutcase-American who murdered his wife in a desperate plea for attention.
Yes, David, the mission of the TV station was the impetus for my entire reaction to this story. Just another moderate Muslim practicing the peace and love dictated by the Koran.
Dammerung, yes, this particular act of beheading was an exception amongst American Muslim cable TV station owners. My interpretation of the Muslim response to it was not. Granted, I might have missed something, but I didn’t hear a lot of condemnation when riots erupted in multiple countries against a cartoon. I believe it’s because mainstream Muslims were too busy demanding the cartoonist’s head to submit their official statements against beheadings.
It’s not “stereotyping” to recognize a connection between someone’s thought and action. The clues to that (and to get back to Burgess’s question) involve every aspect of Muslim thought and action: the violence by those who do it, their own explanation for the violence that refers directly to their religion, and the text of the Koran itself. In my perusal of it, I found plenty to show that the September 11 terrorists and the daily Iraqi suicide bombers are not hypocritical at all.
It’s early, but “this particular act of beheading was an exception amongst American Muslim cable TV station owner” is going to be hard to beat as the funniest thing I’ll read today.
Oh, the horrible irony of this event keeps hitting me in waves. It seems Pythonesque. I mean, the guy could have humorously failed to embody his message of peace and understanding and moderation in hundreds of lesser ways. Calling for the destruction of Israel on his channel, say, or drumming up controversy about Muslim waitresses at Perkins being forced to see bacon. But no, he went all out.
We’re not rejecting _people_ - or a group of people. We’re rejecting an idea or set of ideas. That’s why the accusation of ‘collectivism’ was so misplaced and ironic. Maybe not as ironical as threatening to behead you for your stereotyping, but hey.
>>My interpretation of the Muslim response to it was not.
What “Muslim” response? It seems to me that right-thinking people hear about this story, take a short laugh at the irony, and then move on with life. Why does there need to be some kind of organized propaganda campaign to convince you that the average Muslim isn’t going to behead his wife?
>>but I didn’t hear a lot of condemnation when riots erupted in multiple countries against a cartoon.
So you really believe the stated reason? The fact is the people who rioted live in extremely repressive countries, often dictatorships sponsored by Western powers. It seems to me that the cartoon issue was an added-insult-to-injury situation; also, it was one of few acts of political protest that the government would permit.
To see the hypocrisy of Western governments towards the Middle East, you only need to look at its relationship to the House of Saud, or Mubarak of Egypt. Or, historically speaking, Operation Ajax and Reza Shah.
>>In my perusal of it, I found plenty to show that the September 11 terrorists and the daily Iraqi suicide bombers are not hypocritical at all.
It seems that you have somehow missed that the bulk of the Koran repeats over and over - “Allah is compassionate and benevolent. Allah is kind.” I mean, literally every paragraph in some places.
You can cherry-pick anything out of any holy book. Paul makes one remark about homosexuality, and you get Fred Phelps and “God hates fags” despite Jesus being pretty clear that God is compassionate and merciful.
Sufis interpret the Koran in a wildly different way from Wahhabis. A theology professor of mine related a tale in which one of his teachers said, “I’ll show you what the Bible says!” and slammed it down on the lectern and waited for two minutes. The Bible, of course, didn’t speak a word.
Here is one more thing to chew on. The sect of Islam that bin Laden and the hijackers adhered to was Wahhabism. The sponsor of Wahhabism is the Saudi Arabian government - they fund madrassas all over the world that teach some pretty disgusting things. But who is the sponsor of the abominable Saudi regime? The United States! This is why some people say 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost.
“You can cherry-pick anything out of any holy book.”
True, and that is done by intention. Religion is based on faith, and faith is the act of abandoning ones rational judgement in favor of feelings, whims, etc. When one is ruled by faith, having a contradictory and incoherent scripture gives one much more flexibility than a consistent set of principles would.
Faith also leaves out rational discourse as an option for interacting with others. The only other reliable way of getting agreement in a faith based culture, when rational argument is unavailable, is force. A society steeped in mysticism is a society prone to violence. Observe the constant warfare of Europe in the Middle Ages and the Middle East today, and you will see what I mean. The only differences is that the West eventually had a rebirth of reason which counteracted the negative influence of religion, while the Middle East did not.
>>The only other reliable way of getting agreement in a faith based culture, when rational argument is unavailable, is force. A society steeped in mysticism is a society prone to violence.
In my experience, mysticism is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is belief in God based on language, argument, and indoctrination. Mysticism is based on a religious experience from which belief in God is the natural conclusion. Many of us, myself included, have had bad experiences with people of “faith.” That does not mean that God does not exist, that life does not pervade every atom of the universe.
>>Observe the constant warfare of Europe in the Middle Ages and the Middle East today, and you will see what I mean. The only differences is that the West eventually had a rebirth of reason which counteracted the negative influence of religion,
World War I. World War II. Vietnam. The Falklands War. Iran-Contra. Cuban Missile Crisis. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dresden. Operation Ajax. The Troubles. Apartheid. Jim Crow. Colonialism, India, Bangladesh, Ethiopia - Australia, AmerIndian genocide, Queen Liliuokalani.
Some enlightened, rational West.
World War I, AmerIndian Genocide, Queen Liliuokalani - Manifest Destiny, the idea that a nation is ordained by God to rule all it can seize.
World War II - Manifest Destiny, plus a revival of crazy-ass ‘pagan’ faiths - Norse in Germany, Roman in Italy, Shinto in Japan.
Colonialism - Leftover Manifest Destiny, plus some (equally religious) White Man’s Burden.
Jim Crow, Apartheid - There’s this great section in the Bible where it explains that black people are your lessers because Noah’s black son saw him naked.
Iran Contra - ‘Wow, how can we deal with these crazy-ass religious people?’
The Troubles - Kay, I gotta give you, the Irish are, in fact, as crazy as any Middle Eastern Tribes.
Cuban Missile Crisis - Worship of The State is just as bad as worship of God.
Everything else is basically folded into those, and only added to give your list some extra padding so you can sound smarter.
That list would be much longer and much worse if there hadn’t been enlightenment and rationality, to counteract the religious zeal that can be found at the root of just about all of these. As an example that doesn’t involve warfare - Black Death’s casualty list is estimated at around 75 Million, total, over the centuries. The ‘Spanish Flu’ epidemic in 1920 killed 40 million in the span of months. The one that happened in the midst of religious idiots, however, is the one that nearly wiped out civilization.
>>That list would be much longer and much worse if there hadn’t been enlightenment and rationality
This is a counterfactual claim - it can neither be proved nor disproved.
>>The one that happened in the midst of religious idiots, however, is the one that nearly wiped out civilization.
You’re blaming the high casualty count from the Black Plague on RELIGION!?
The family of the beheaded wife in Pakisthan is stiil happy. The daughter did not get a divorce and try to come back to Pakisthan, which would be a disgrace than death. Also, her husband killed her, there is nothing wrong!
The Arabi race combined with muslim religion has lot of cruelty traits in them. The only way out is to destroy 90% of these people and the their future generations can start trying to lear how to live a civilized life.
We Bombed the GErmans and that made them realize the mistakes. HOW about these bastards!
Alla: Can you expand on who is the “we” who bombed the GErmans? It’s some group other than English-speakers, but I’m not quite able to place it.
British and United States Airforce.
I am a liberal myself but I get terrified to see that in the northern European countries, the Muslim immigrants , who were let in on humanitarian reasons, sowing the seeds of the Islam religion there.And the liberals there totally mum. They do not know whhat they are doing.
Actually, it’s possible that they really do know what they are doing. Sorta.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B41AF907-0F8F-4527-9A68-4A9AFEAF656A
My opinion is US is not as bad as the Nordic coutries, they are the ones on account of being “cultured and forward thinking” , digging thier own grave. They seem to forget the past hardwork of the denturies and the resonsibilty to thier future generations.
Of course population is decreasing in thse countries and in the other parts of the world its exploding and there are millions of refugees. That is not an excuse for digging one’s own grave though
Alla: I asked who the “we” was you were referring to so I wouldn’t unfairly comment on your spelling and grammar. What is your first language? (And in the meantime, this might come in useful.)
Leave a Comment