||2017-11-01 16:13:14, 조회 : 513, 추천 : 163
Social Control Begins at Home
Chapter 6 (Part 2)
Last week, we learned what it means to command right and forbid wrong in Islam. This practice is a duty among all Muslim because the Qur'an highlights this. Due to this practice, we learned about honor killings being conducted and how this justifies the death of many Muslims today. For example, we learned about the fifteen-year old girl who had acid thrown at her by her own mother for looking at a boy on a motorcycle. We learned about the twenty-five year old woman who was stoned to death for marrying against her father's wishes. These honor killings are done in the manner of commanding right and forbidding wrong. Today. we will see how this doctrine takes root and how it has taken a place even in America.
For the past couple of weeks, we have looked into the sharia law and how Islam requires believers to command right and forbid wrong. A group that uses this doctrine is IS. IS believes that anyone living in the "caliphate" should covert to these practices. You can see this if you were to look at videos where IS members go into cities they want to take over. For example, in a video taken in Mosul, a IS member wagged his finger at a woman that wasn't covered up. Clothing stores in these cities were ordered to cover up their mannequins. How do progressive cities turn back the hands of time and become warped back into previous centuries? Ali states, "The answer is that the central elements of this type of fundamentalism are already present in Islamic politics, albeit in diluted form." The IS agenda is no different than the Muslim Brotherhoods or the Saudi Wahhabist teachings. Places like Syria which was once considered secular became IS central after the civil war. The doctrine of commanding right and forbidding wrong gives way for groups of IS to expand. Ali asks, "When life is dominated by the fear of small infractions, how little thought can be given to the bigger questions?"
This doctrine has not only taken over places that have Islam as their main religion, but it has also expanded to America. In America today, we see how commanding right and forbidding wrongs has been used to justify honor killings. For example, in October 2009, Noor al-Maleki was killed by her father in Phoenix, Arizona. The father ran over Noor with his Jeep. Why? Her father didn't like the fact that his daughter liked "makeup, boys, Western music, and hoped to be able to support herself." In addition, she didn't want to marry the man that her father arranged. The man was an Iraqi man who needed a green card. Essentially, Noor wanted to choose her own path, her own fate. Many people from the Iraqi community supported Noor's father in his action. A mother told Time magazine, "I think what he did was right. It's his daughter, and our religion doesn't allow us to do what she did." In result, the Arizona judge found the father guilty of second-degree murder and was sentenced to thirty-four years in prison. Another example is an Egyptian father in Dallas Texas. He decided to shoot his seventeen and eighteen year old daughter Sarah and Amina eleven times for dating non-Muslim boys. The girls brother stated, "They pulled the trigger, not my dad." Another example is in upstate New York, where Fauzia Mohammed was stabbed eleven times by her own brother because she wore "immodest clothing" and that she was being a "bad Muslim." These honor killings aren't being done just in the United States but also in Canada. For example, a multimillionaire Afghan immigrant Muhammad Shafia killed his wife and three daughters by locking them in a car and pushing them into a canal. This is because they were becoming too "Westernized." Another example is sixteen year old girl Aqsa Parvez who was strangled to death by her father by not wearing a hijab.
These honor killings cannot be justified in anyway whatsoever. These killings are done by those that are closest to the victims. These killings are often categorized as domestic violence in the West. This is why it is underreported and doesn't appear as a problem that the West is facing. One of the reasons why domestic violence differs from honor violence is because domestic violence is often done behind closed doors. Yet, honor violence is done in the open and accepted by their family members and communities. Ali states, "There is no stigma because of the belief that the perpetrator is in the right. There is no need to leave bruises only where they will not show." Ali argues that when Muslims state that "It is our religion" to justify the honor violence, the West should reply "Murder and above all infanticide, cannot be sanctioned by any religion, by any faith, by any God." The argument of "It is our religion" is often used by lawyers defending perpetrators. For example, a Pakistani man in Brooklyn beat his wife to death with a stick. Why? Because she made him a meal with lentil instead of the goat meat he wanted. He left her "a bloody mess." His attorney began his defense by saying that he was acting "culturally appropriate" because "he believed he had the right to hit and discipline his wife." He was sentenced to eighteen years to life. However, what if he was in a country that had sharia law? Would this incident have been reported?
The argument that "It is our religion" or my "duty as a Muslim" to perform heinous crimes can become problematic on a larger scale. Take for example Kabir Ahmed who believed that homosexuals should be punished by death. He stated, "The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way." He was taken away for "stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation." However, in court he argued that it was his duty not only to better himself but to "better the society [he] lived in." Kabir later joined IS after being released. In November 2014, he drove to a Iraqi police convoy in Baghdad with explosives, killed himself, an Iraqi general, seven policemen and injured fifteen people. What Kabir did was exactly what one who practices commanding right and forbidding wrong would do. He stated earlier in the week before his attack, "It is for the sake of...religion and...honor. We are not for this life, but for the afterlife."
Commanding right and forbidding wrong is completely against the Western principle of individual freedom. In the West, we are free to think, speak and make choices. This doctrine has shown that it is detrimental to the people that live in that society and turns the hands back in time. Next week, we will look more closely at what is jihad and "why the call for holy war is a charter for terror."
1) How does IS practice the doctrine of commanding right and forbidding wrong?
2) What does Ali mean when she states, "When life is dominated by the fear of small infractions, how little thought can be given to the bigger questions?"
3) This doctrine has become practiced in America. Why do you think this is happening? Do you think this is a big problem?
4) Do you think the argument "It is our religion" strong? Why or why not?
5) Compare this doctrine to the values that we cherish in the West. How does it differ?