Article

Beheading is Not "Domestic Violence"

From the “elephant in the room” department comes this little item: As I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, a Muslim TV executive who had started a network to “counter anti-Muslim stereotypes” beheaded his wife.

Beheading takes work, planning, and a very sharp blade (not that I’ve ever tried it, all those pesky bones and tendons would make it a bit tough). It also has a life-changing finality when the victim is your wife. It’s not something you do when you’re a little drunk or upset. Domestic violence is throwing things at your significant other or slapping them around.

No. This is murder of the most degrading sort. Worse, it’s ritualized murder from a culture that has taught men for centuries that women were property to be disposed of as they saw fit.

Domestic violence is depressingly common across all religions and among non-believers. This is another matter entirely. A simple question will resolve it: If you heard on the radio that a man was being accused of beheading his wife, and someone offered you a $10,000 prize to guess the man’s religion, what would be your final answer?

Thought so. So let’s drop all this obfuscating ‘domestic violence’ bullshit, OK?

The sensational aspects of the murder of 37-year-old Aasiya Zubair Hassan have distracted many from the underlying issue of domestic violence. Aasiya was decapitated by her husband, 44-year old Muzzammil Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, a Buffalo-area television station created to fight the stereotyping of Muslim Americans.

The sad irony is that some have latched on to the idea that Aasiya’s death was an honor killing, blaming the Islamic faith for the bizarre and gruesome actions of one violent man who just happened to be Muslim.

According to Orchard Park, NY police chief Andrew Benz, Aasiya had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection against her husband on February 6. She was found dead at the TV station six days later. The police had previously responded to domestic violence incidents at the couple’s home.

Over at BlogHer, Kim Pearson asks, “TV executive beheaded in Buffalo; husband charged – what’s Islam got to do with it?” She examines why so many have been distracted by the ‘honor killing’ angle and ignored the larger picture – that we need to identify domestic violence in our communities and work to end it.

via Domestic Violence, Not Religion, Behind Beheading of Muslim Woman in Buffalo.


Comments (12 comments)

peter / February 25th, 2009, 1:56 am / #1

"The sad irony is that some have latched on to the idea that Aasiya’s death was an honor killing, blaming the Islamic faith for the bizarre and gruesome actions of one violent man who just happened to be Muslim."
TV executive beheaded in Buffalo; husband charged – what’s Islam got to do with it?” She examines
why so many have been distracted by the ‘honor killing’ angle and ignored the larger picture – that we need to identify domestic violence in our communities and work to end it."

The irony is that someone proclaiming the "peaceful" aspects of Islam at his TV station goes ahead and commits a well planned murder fitting the customs of his religion – domestic violence my arse.
Another one for peaceful Islam.
It takes a certain amount of complete stupidity to confuse murder with domestic violence.
And it takes a certain amount of complete stupidity to deny the religious aspect behind the killing.

BlackSun / February 25th, 2009, 4:16 pm / #2

peter,

Good points. It's either stupid or more likely deliberate propaganda. If I was a Muslim American, I'd be hanging my head in shame. The behavior of Muslims in this era will be remembered for the next 500 years for its sheer inhumanity. The man did not just "happen to be Muslim," he was a prime public advocate for his culture. As such, he should have realized the profound impact his crime would have.

What lies at the root of it is his inability to face the shadow (his own shortcomings, his refusal to submit to a negotiated and equal relationship, and resort to tyranny over his wife, who had called him a "monster"). Most men not brainwashed with feelings of divine superiority would recognize their own culpability.

He just couldn't deal with the thought that his wife was not his property, that she was a free agent who could defy him, leave him and build a separate life for herself. The humiliation was too great for a man obviously used to getting his way and informed by his religion that his will was justified by Allah.

Other men commit these types of murders on women who leave them. But when the Islamic culture and beheading is involved–well–it takes it to another level.

And the shadow denial is equally present in the Muslim apologists (women, no less!!) who are falling all over themselves to deflect attention from their anti-human traditions. If it's not a Muslim thing, then why are Muslim honor killings so widespread? Hindus are the only others who regularly commit these atrocities where the authorities look the other way and fail to prosecute the perpetrators. But Islam's very public war on freedom around the world makes them the primary exemplars of this modern barbarism.

I don't see them losing that crown anytime soon. The pathology runs so deep, and they are suffused with their violent and misogynistic scripture. They could change, if they would simply stop fighting the inevitable, and begin to accept the concept of inherent and universal human rights.

nrubinstein / February 25th, 2009, 4:36 pm / #3

Abusers can spend a lot of time and energy actually planning something like this — it's not always spontaneous. Noted, the 'beheading' thing is clearly something we associate with Muslim-related terrorism.
I know of several women who are very, very dead from DV. It may have started with a slapping or a kicking or just being pushed up against a wall. But it's hard to please an abuser; they tend to get more and more demanding. I'll bet this guy feels justified in what he's done, and regretful because of what HE lost (wife, job, freedom). Abusers who kill are seldom remorseful. They typically get 7 years because they go to court and try to prove that 'it was her fault'. Women generally get 20 years (because they ARE remorseful, and take responsibility).
The larger picture here is that terrorism and domestic violence appear to be different aspects of the same type of narcissistic and controlling behavior, based on having power over others. Lord, what a bunch of petulant children these terrorists and abusers are. If they don't get other people to do what they want, they figure it's okay to kill 'em.

BlackSun / February 25th, 2009, 4:56 pm / #4

terrorism and domestic violence appear to be different aspects of the same type of narcissistic and controlling behavior, based on having power over others. Lord, what a bunch of petulant children these terrorists and abusers are.

Exactly. It begins when a man says to a woman, "cover your body, you're making me desire you." Then it extends to: "You made me hit you because you didn't do what I said."

Then the personal becomes political as whole societies demand puritan laws and restrictions rather than feel and learn to manage their desire, lust and competition.

peter / February 26th, 2009, 12:14 am / #5

The Muslim attempt to control temptation by controlling their women instead of themselves just shows how characterless and morally weak those bastards are. If you cannot control yourself – and that is also aimed at those non muslim idiots who think women are there for their taking – maybe they should consider to castrate themselves, and save us all the trouble dealing with consequences of their actions.

Myriam Koepcke / March 2nd, 2009, 8:51 pm / #6

Assuming the courts are lawful, do you know, are consequences for murder different than consequences for "domestic violence" resulting in death?

I believe U.S. courts do make this distinction–which would, if true, implies that our own culture believes spouses, particularly female spouses/S.O.'s are of less worth than other human beings.

Nancy Rubinstein / March 4th, 2009, 5:21 pm / #7

These type of cases are generally governed by individual state laws. Murder is murder, but sentencing decisions can be based on a wide set of criteria — insanity, passion, etc. Until 1992, it was inadmissable to bring evidence of abuse into the sentencing in California. So, if you hit him over the head with a bottle while struggling to escape because he was trying to kill you, it didn't count. This has now been changed, so more women are getting a straight 7-to-10 on a 2nd degree, instead of 20-to-life of a 1st degree.

So, in most states now, the distinction would be in degree charged and extent of sentence. Women: get a good lawyer, and be careful about pleading out. At least in California.

peter / March 5th, 2009, 4:20 am / #8

. So, if you hit him over the head with a bottle while struggling to escape because he was trying to kill you, it didn't count

What happened to self defense? It is permissable to kill a guy with a handgun if he threatens you with a knife, but it is manslaughter if a woman kills her assailant in a struggle?
I am the only one thinking something ain't right?

Nancy Rubinstein / March 5th, 2009, 5:21 am / #9

That's an example from pre-1992. This type of evidence is now allowed during sentencing, and can mitigate the sentence to a certain degree. But women who plea out usually end up with longer sentences, because they take full responsibility for killing someone and tend to let the courts sentence them more harshly. The courts are glad to oblige. It all depends on how you play the game, how much money you have, and where you live. Avoid Texas, of course! Women who have been controlled for years have a much harder time dealing with the court system. And prisons are horrible for them, too. We finally were able to get hand-patting of private parts stopped by male guards in California just 3 years ago.

Again, men tend to blame someone else….the woman, society, whatever…and they fight in court. They tend to get fewer years, or get off entirely.

Myriam Koepcke / March 10th, 2009, 10:02 pm / #10

Women who live in a controlling state are more likely to be the women who have been controlled for years. If there are no other legal options than to be controlled, then guess what? Women end up being controlled. If the courts allow them to be human beings rather than slaves, then guess what? Women magically become emancipated. Not because they "decided to take control" of their situation, as Eckart Tolle erroneously assumes all persons have equal ability to do, but rather because the courts finally allowed them to do so.

Myriam Koepcke / March 10th, 2009, 10:37 pm / #11

Nancy,
You identified the major catch-22 that keeps women enslaved: If a man uses the legal system to enslave his wife or s.o. first, then no matter what she does, no matter what legal council she hires, she could have a legal dream team headed by F. Lee Bailey running the show, doesn't matter, she still won't be able to use the system to break free. As in chess, whoever plays the offensive game wins. Whoever's the meanest wins. There are no true winners in such a game, and unfortunately, the children lose most.

Myriam Koepcke / April 8th, 2009, 5:39 pm / #12

Restoring the balance of power between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government, will solve the real problem:

When law isn't upheld then individuals start believing all men, or all women, or all members of a racial or religious group, etc.– are to blame for a situation actually caused by inappropriate court rulings.

If you are concerned about ineffective law promoting wrong perceptions (i.e., all men of a certain racial group are demons who kill their children, etc.)–please consider signing the following petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/justiceforjack

If one Illinois judge is made accountable then perhaps rulings will begin to change across the board. Bad rulings eventually result in "mob mentality" pandemonium which could be prevented by a correct balance between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of governancewatch?v=sZYMbMQ0mtg

Thomas Jefferson pointed out that if the judicial branch of government ever superceded the power of the executive and legislative branches, laws would cease to have meaning and tyranny would result.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.