U.S. NEWS: Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue

[Search]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

A British woman's traditional Muslim clothing was set on fire on Fifth Avenue, New York police have said.

The woman, who had been staying in a Manhattan hotel, was returning from sightseeing when she felt a warm spot on her arm, an officer told the BBC.

She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury.

The attack is being investigated as a possible hate crime.

A police source confirmed to the BBC the woman is Scottish but would not confirm local reports she is a dentist from Glasgow.

The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.

They have footage of a man they suspect of the crime and are appealing for witnesses.

When news emerged of the attack, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called upon the mayor to add resources to the city's hate crime investigation unit.
"We are clearly seeing a spike in attacks on individual Muslims and Islamic institutions in New York and around the country, which should be of concern to all Americans," said CAIR-NY Executive Director Afaf Nasher.

"It is time for the mayor and the NYPD to put forward the necessary resources to investigate and prevent these attacks on the Muslim community."

[Waahid]

No proper man would do such a thing. I'm Scottish and I hate 'don't like' dentists because they use drills/pliers and the Polish ones use screwdrivers...

[Waahid]

No, absolutely not. Violence towards women is unnacceptable and should be punished harshly.

[jabeady]

No, we're joking about dentists.

I think you know or can guess pretty well my opinion on hate crimes. As this one goes, however, it was pretty minor with mild physical harm done. I do regret the emotional impact on the victim, and I wish her the best, but she will never see or hear any comment I might make.

BTW, there is such a thing as Gallows Humor. I'm sure there's a dictionary definition for it, but the best explanation I ever heard is that it is the hysteria of a sane man when facing disaster.

[sister herb]

I don´t think that this thread is suitable for the jokes - just same who is your target.

It is also called as "off topic".

[jabeady]

I think the dentist talk was light-hearted. :/

There's an awful lot of tragedy in this life. It's difficult to work up a lot of outrage, sometimes, and this was a comparatively minor episode.

[sister herb]

I bet it wasn´t very minor episode - attemp to burn somebody alive.

[Search]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Grief and outrage are the natural reaction. But so is perhaps laughter. Not because this is particularly funny. But precisely because it is tragic.

Because in 1928 investigation into humor, Freud argued that laughter was a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the Sisyphean distresses of everyday life. In Wit and Its Relation to Unconscious, Freud gives the example of a prisoner about to locked in the gallows who says to his guard: “Well, this is a good beginning to the week.” The prisoner makes a joke because he doesn’t want to cry; his ego distracts his conscious brain from the unspeakable misery of the moment.

Laughter isn't always about comedy; it's about how most jokes turning in our minds are born from temporary tragedies like when we laugh seeing a man falling and slipping on a clean floor and landing on his bum, even though he is hurt and could have broken his back and his neck.

That said, I also think sister herb is right; the man who did this to the woman wanted to burn her alive; as I read her last post in this thread, I was sobered by the instant realization that our Muslim sisters are open targets due to hatred and bigotry. That is not particularly funny.

Simultaneously, I'm chagrined to admit that I laughed at the dentist jokes; I don't know what that says about me, but I hope it is not that I'm a bad person. Probably though my humor is seriously misplaced. Because I doubt I'd be laughing if I had been in this situation or any of of my loved ones. I guess life is very unfunny sometimes, and paradoxical laughter is my crutch.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLSzf96h-k

He wants to burn the clothes of a Muslim woman. In jail, they'll burn his clothes off him slowly. They have all the time in the world for him.

Papa wag vir hom.

[M.I.A.]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Grief and outrage are the natural reaction. But so is perhaps laughter. Not because this is particularly funny. But precisely because it is tragic.

Because in 1928 investigation into humor, Freud argued that laughter was a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with the Sisyphean distresses of everyday life. In Wit and Its Relation to Unconscious, Freud gives the example of a prisoner about to locked in the gallows who says to his guard: “Well, this is a good beginning to the week.” The prisoner makes a joke because he doesn’t want to cry; his ego distracts his conscious brain from the unspeakable misery of the moment.

Laughter isn't always about comedy; it's about how most jokes turning in our minds are born from temporary tragedies like when we laugh seeing a man falling and slipping on a clean floor and landing on his bum, even though he is hurt and could have broken his back and his neck.

That said, I also think sister herb is right; the man who did this to the woman wanted to burn her alive; as I read her last post in this thread, I was sobered by the instant realization that our Muslim sisters are open targets due to hatred and bigotry. That is not particularly funny.

Simultaneously, I'm chagrined to admit that I laughed at the dentist jokes; I don't know what that says about me, but I hope it is not that I'm a bad person. Probably though my humor is seriously misplaced. Because I doubt I'd be laughing if I had been in this situation or any of of my loved ones. I guess life is very unfunny sometimes, and paradoxical laughter is my crutch.

..ya got me..

as the old saying goes, if I wasn't laffin id be crying..

and I don't really like crying.

..and laffin is outlawed.

:|

just as well I didn't get it..

concentrating on work and manners and etiquette.

in all honesty I don't exist..

which is probably for the better.

[jabeady]

I bet it wasn´t very minor episode - attemp to burn somebody alive.

As it turned out it was minor. There is little chance the woman was in serious physical danger. At the worst, bystanders would have helped beat out the flames. Which makes me ask:

If the woman had been in serious danger, and if (non Muslim) bystanders had helped her, how much mention would you be giving the bystanders right now in this conversation?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Yes, the sister didn't suffer serious physical damage; however, the intention of the assailant must be taken into consideration. He intended to cause harm to her. He just wasn't able to do it. If he could, he'd happily have burnt her alive. His situation is the same as that of a person who is trying to rape a woman, and then someone comes along and scares him away. His intention was to rape her and thus he should be dealt with accordingly. If no action is taken against such a person (like this would-be rapist, for example) he will simply do it the next time he gets the chance. He hasn't changed. He hasn't mended his ways. He was just scared away. He'll be back again. Take action against him, though, and you've solved the problem permanently.

[M.I.A.]

...not a therapist joke.

although in prison life, most people keep quiet.

strange place.

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

in all honesty I don't exist..

You don't exist?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Did you watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLkRA2pdBdE

Those are the South African jails. Pollsmoor is particularly notorious. They should send this guy here to Pollsmoor.

[M.I.A.]

Meh, being chief is hard.. being chef is hard..

always someone who wants something different.

..
....
...make it yourself.


nothing in life is easy, be grateful.. most of us do not endure..

the more guns to combat gun crime way of life.

I'm not knocking it..

the flip side is that people who are really good at guns can sort of change the converstion a bit when they show up..

fear does negate good or bad for the most part.


it's always a double edged blade.

I will not wait at the chopping blocks to do your bidding..

do it yourself.

who will know if you become kings or tyrants?

only the people who had need to turn up in front of you.

drama much? woe is me..


I guess what I've always said is that from my point of view..

most battles are won and lost long before any battlefield or judge is reached.


may Allah swt have mercy upon us.


hopefully any half competent investigation will lead to an arrest..

any vigilantism would just alienate you further..

why don't you go set some people on fire.. that will put things right.


Road rage.


...no that's not what I'm saying, only beat up the bad people!!

...who don't have families..

or children.

or are from deprived backgrounds.

...Maybe those that leave lines between sentences so there posts seem way too long.. them guys deserve it.

honestly most people should really count there blessings. that they are so tolerant.

Maybe one day we won't fear or grieve..

although tumult and oppression are worse than death.

[Search]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

(Peace be upon you)

Hi, brother. I have to respectfully disagree with you.

In the past, I have often disagreed with @cooterhein and he will tell you that I have often disagreed with him and even honestly threatened once to report him. I do feel he comes across an Islamophobic person in many discussions as I've even bluntly told him; I'm sure he'll be corroborate those things as facts.

That said, in this matter, I have to say that I agree with @cooterhein. I don't agree with taking the laws in one hands; and I think it is irresponsible to encourage any persons to do so; Muslims should hold themselves to a higher standard, and they should not do anything that is against the law even if it may bring personal satisfaction or temporary egoistic pleasure at presumably vigilante justice having been served because violence is an easy answer but a total non-solution to the problem.

If anything is done in self-defense (and that includes defense of others), that's fine morally and also legally.

However, anything other than that is not fine. For example, let's think about the hosts of problem this non-solution presents: (a) a person will be jailed if caught and will have to post a bond to be released which can be financially hefty depending on what the crime this person committed (b) what if the person committing this extrajudical violence, since the person was not present, may commit the violence against an innocent person because he doesn't have the means to investigate the crime as the police do and may penalize the wrong person, (c) justifies the stereotype of the "Mad Muslim" that acts first and thinks later, (d) will be presenting media a golden chance to present once again how Muslims are intolerant and the original news of a woman being the target of a hate crime would be drowned out in the face of this new news storm, (e) brings shame and dishonor to the Muslim family and community, and (f) renders moot the impersonal state mechanisms for punishing criminals, and (g) creates a false link between vigilantism and Islam when there is no place in Islam for vigilantism.

How then has anything of value been accomplished then with extrajudicial violence? Rather, we're in loss and in advocating such a position become the architects of chaos.

My advice to them is nothing more than this:

"Do what you must."

See that ^ right there? Nothing incriminating in that statement. No extra-judicial violence in that statement. Nothing complicated in that statement. But, it is a statement made on a public forum understood by people who have understanding.

Everyone has to do what they have to do, don't they?

Like when the Jews wanted to incriminate Jesus, and challenged him on the issue of paying taxes to Caesar, he said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

(And peace be upon you)

[jabeady]

He intended to cause harm to her. He just wasn't able to do it. If he could, he'd happily have burnt her alive.

Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?

[Search]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, I don't think there is any way to know for a 100% sure. From what I understand, a prosecutor could theoretically go for either first degree assault or attempted murder with a specified offense of hate crime for the perpetrator. In New York, attempted murder is same level offense of assault in the first degree; so, I'd think a prosecutor would just go for the assault in the first degree with a specified offense of hate crime.

Tell me how you know this. How do you know he didn't just intend to scare or harass her? How do you know?

[jabeady]

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Well, I don't think there is any way to know for a 100% sure. From what I understand, a prosecutor could theoretically go for either first degree assault or attempted murder with a specified offense of hate crime for the perpetrator. In New York, attempted murder is same level offense of assault in the first degree; so, I'd think a prosecutor would just go for the assault in the first degree with a specified offense of hate crime.

Precisely. A prosecutor will go for the most serious charge for which he is sure to get a conviction. The danger is in "over-charging." Remember, under the American system, once you are acquitted of a crime you can never be tried for it again. The prosecutor has to get it right the first time. A conviction for aggravated assault is generally easier to get than for attempted murder. It may well be that you charge him with attempted murder, he is acquitted and goes free, when a charge of assault would have put him in jail for a number of years.

The designation of a hate crime doesn't usually come into play until the sentencing phase. I *think* in most states the hate crime designation functions to double the sentence to be imposed.