When In America, Do As The Saudi Arabians Do
I love the idea of America as a melting pot.
When my ancestors came here from various Eastern-European shitholes, they were determined to become American.
That meant learning the language and living with American values, like the value of entrepreneurial work. (My great-grandpa engaged in that in less-than-lofty ways, as a self-employed trash-picker, collecting metal scrap to the point he sent my grandpa to Wayne State University -- and med school.)
Well, some immigrants aren't exactly so into the "becoming American" thing. Like this guy.
From the Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, 53-year-old Youssif Z. Omar was at the local high school when he saw his 14-year-old "female family member" was not wearing her hijab (headscarf).
What else was there for Omar to do?
Omar became irate, Stroer said, grabbed the girl "very violently by the hair" and pulled her outside and down a flight of stairs.Omar allegedly slapped the girl's face and pulled her into his car by her hair, Stroer said. Police arrested Omar on suspicion of child abuse, a felony, at 5:10 p.m. Wednesday at his residence in the 1700 block of Timber Creek Drive. He was released from the Boone County Jail after posting a $4,500 bond.
And yes, contrary to what you sometimes hear, Islam, which views women as the possessions of men, requires women to cover themselves:
Islamic law (Sharia) requires women to cover themselves. The practical application in modern Muslim countries varies with a combination of individual and social taste. The Taliban require full burqas (covering everything, including a mesh for the eyes), while the more secular governments of Turkey and Tunisia once banned headscarves in public buildings (the bans have since been lifted following the Islamist ascension).
The head covering is interpreted as a symbol of male domination by most critics and by many Muslim women who fight for the right to dress as they please. In December of 2007, a father in Canada beat his 16-year-old daughter to death for refusing to wear the hijab (headscarf).
Some apologists insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use. In fact, verse 24:60 says that the veil is optional only for unmarried women too old to have children.
CAIR's Jamal Badawi, often held up as a moderate scholar, insists that the hijab is "a command of Allah to Muslim women" and it should be "the duty of the state" to enforce it.
Some women do wear the hijab by choice, but it is impossible to say what percentage, since the pressure to cover one's head can either be subtle or pronounced. In 2011, an imam at a supposedly moderate mosque in Sammamish, Washington claimed that Muslim wives wear the hijab because they want to, but then stated that they may be "punished" if they refuse. In Pakistan, uncovered women are routinely attacked with acid. In Iran, Basij fundamentalists have raped and killed dress code violators.
Clerics, such as Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have said that unveiled victims of public rape invited their attackers: "If I came across a rape crime - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it... If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."
In responding to a 2014 anti-hijab demonstration by women, an Iranian activist bluntly said that "it is a man's right to benefit from what he loves. When a man forces himself onto a woman because she is "showing off her beauty", this [should not] be considered rape."
Tweeted the link on Sunday night and got this back:
@shoshido
@amyalkon He's Libyan, not Saudi.
My response:
@amyalkon
Header not about where he's from in particular. It happens in pretty much any Muslim majority country. And now, in Missouri!
I thought I saw a tweet yesterday about shariah and the comfort some feminists have with it. I thought to respond, but 140 characters isn't a lot, but my reaction is:
Of course they have a certain amount of comfort with shariah. Both parties believe that men are ravening beasts with zero self control around women.
They just differ on the solution.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 30, 2015 6:59 AM
I am curious to see what the "rape culture" universities are going to do when a Muslim male "sexually assaults" a coed wearing skinny jeans or a mini skirt.
I suppose under those circumstances wearing a miniskirt in front of a Muslim male is affirmative consent.
Bill O Rights at November 30, 2015 7:25 AM
It's odd - I seem to remember hearing that rape by Muslim strangers is much worse in Europe than it used to be (though for all I know, non-Muslim women weren't the ones mainly targeted), but I don't remember hearing of Muslim student rapists on American college campuses, regardless of whether the victim was a non-veiled Muslim or a non-Muslim, period.
At any rate, my guess is that most such rapists will be smart enough to target Muslim women only. That will make it more complicated for the prosecution.
Oh, and re the cats and meat: Someone should tell that guy that it's the fault of the cats' OWNERS - and, in the same vein, parents of a criminal should have the right to lock up any son of theirs, boy or man, who "can't help himself." As Miss Manners once said, in effect, there are only two types of mental illness - that which you can control yourself and that which other people should be controlling for you.
(Yes, I'm probably nitpicking with the following; cats are often allowed to run about outdoors, but they shouldn't be, partly because they kill songbirds and partly because they pollute the neighbors' gardens. In the same vein, young boys and girls who MIGHT shoplift out of boredom need to be carefully supervised as well, if only so they can't be falsely accused later. Plus, owners have an obligation to get their pets fixed and make sure they don't get lost or killed.)
lenona at November 30, 2015 8:03 AM
Good news!
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17973#.Vlx0ZroZ6fF
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2015 8:09 AM
I can't find the link now; but, I read this the other day with additional information. This guy was either a fulltime teaching assistant or a graduate student who was a teaching assistant at the same school where the protestors forced the President to resign.
If this part of the story (that he is/was a teaching assistant) is true that makes this case much worse. For someone with such a backward belief about women is going to treat female students differently - and not in a good way.
Further, if it is true that he still works at that school what are those who forced the school's president out going to do? Call having someone with his beliefs on staff a sign of "diversity"? Or are they going to be outraged at the treatment he smacked into his young relative?
charles at November 30, 2015 8:36 AM
Uncle Omar is an adjunct instructor. And they do differentiate between "instructor" and "professor".
Usually, an adjunct professor is a courtesy appointment for someone on sabbatical from another institution of learning. I think adjunct instructors are teaching some sections of course(s), for a set amount of money without any job security.
I'm going to guess his classes for next semester will be either cancelled, or given to someone else and his contract not renewed.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 30, 2015 10:25 AM
That cat-meat analogy works only if you consider your wives, sisters, and daughters to be meat. Otherwise, whose fault is murder, the murderer (cat) or the murdered (uncovered meat)?
A society that trains it its sons that "uncovered meat" is theirs for the taking is a society that is inviting its most degenerate members to openly do their worst.
No wonder their societies claim to have low crime - they simply blame the victims and, voila, no crime.
Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2015 1:12 PM
I think Amy's NWSA link provides you an answer for that question.
Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2015 1:15 PM
Check out Rotherham and all the folks who looked the other way.
Richard Aubrey at November 30, 2015 4:16 PM
Some apologists insist that the veil is not mandated by the religion, although they do not have anything within the sacred texts to counter the passages in which Muhammad instructed its use.
In this piece in The Guardian -- To hijab or not to hijab - a Muslim businesswoman's view -- British sales and marketing executive Syima Aslam writes:
She is saying the same thing as the comment above, that the command/instruction for women to wear the hijab comes from the sayings of Muhammad (the Hadith), not the Qur'an. The question then is: what kind of authority does the Hadith have in Islam? The Wikipedia entry on the Hadith (presumably unbiased, though it may not be) says;
The way I read this, the Hadith is open to interpretation, or open to how much emphasis is put on it. If something is in the Hadith, but not in the Qur'an, then conservative Muslims likely feel it's the same as word of God, and non-conservative Muslims likely don't. For example, it's not as if all Muslims agree with stoning adulterers (while it's likely that most conservative Muslims do.)
JD at November 30, 2015 10:08 PM
Clerics, such as Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, have said that unveiled victims of public rape invited their attackers: "If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."
It's bizarre how conservative Muslims like this cleric view Muslim men as incapable of having any restraint or self-control.
Some women do wear the hijab by choice, but it is impossible to say what percentage, since the pressure to cover one's head can either be subtle or pronounced.
It seems pretty likely that the percentage who wear it by choice is going to vary depending on what country they live in. In the U.S. and European countries, most women probably do wear it by choice. In countries like Pakistan and Iran, probably not. I think it's a very odd choice, but in a free country, people should be free to make odd choices.
JD at November 30, 2015 10:25 PM
Essentially, yes. The Hadith was gathered and written down because there were questions left unanswered by the Koran.
Since God chose Mohammed as his messenger, Mohammed must have been the kind of person of whom God approved. Good Muslims should therefore strive to be like Mohammed. To do that, they need to know how Mohammed thought about things left unaddressed in the Koran.
The passages of the Hadith were gathered from the memories of people who knew or met Mohammed (Arabia was mostly illiterate at the time, so very little of them were written down).
Islamic scholars generally divide the Hadith passages into three categories - most likely true, possibly true, and probably false.
Like the Bible, the Koran was not initially written down. Mohammed was illiterate and could not write down his prophecies. His followers who were literate wrote down his teachings on date leaves, bark, or whatever they could find. Oral tradition continued and many of the teachings were memorized to be passed on that way.
The third caliph, Uthman, ordered a standardized Koran to be created when he noticed variations in Islam in different parts of the empire. Uthman's council used the original Koran compiled by the first caliph, Abu Bakr, after Mohammed's death as a starting point. Like the Council of Nicea, Uthman's council created a standardized orthodoxy that would last for centuries.
Both Sunni and Shia consider Uthman's Koran to be divine, but they differ on interpretations of the Hadith.
Groups like ISIS cherry pick the Hadith to find passages that support their position and disregard any scholarly warning that the chosen passage might be problematic.
Conan the Grammarian at December 1, 2015 10:05 AM
No wonder their societies claim to have low crime - they simply blame the victims and, voila, no crime.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at November 30, 2015 1:12 PM
Reminds me of what I wrote in 2005 after watching a very grim 1972 movie set in Canada - "Wedding in White" with Carol Kane:
What's creepily fascinating, though, is how everyone, even the victim's mother, seems convinced to the very end that
SPOILERS
there's no such crime as rape - only being raped. Especially when the rapist is a WWII soldier - how could THEY have it in their hearts to do
any wrong after spending a few years killing people?...
lenona at December 1, 2015 3:19 PM
Leave a comment