Yesterday, Muzzammil Hassan, the Buffalo Muslim TV station owner, was found guilty of second degree murder. In 2009, this low life scumbag stabbed his wife Aasiya 40 times before beheading her. She had just filed for divorce (with a restraining order) the week before the murder. Watch the video (below) and you will see just how smug and evil this creature is and I love the fact that it only took the jury 1 hour to convict him. I just hope that he gets the maximum sentence allowed but it still won't be harsh enough.
Domestic violence to men happens, and goes underreported and is often even laughed off. Women have less muscle mass than men and are usually physically weaker, but they can do plenty of damage with a blunt object or a gun.
Unfortunately, you sometimes hear guilty people defend themselves by appropriating the language of others' legitimate defenses, like parental alienation, which I hear a good deal about from some men who write me (and these men typically aren't pleading any case to me or looking for me to do anything for them; they're typically just looking for some words of sympathy back).
Chesler's whole piece on this case (at the above link) is very interesting. She notes that Hassan is from Pakistan (and, I'll note that the culture is not just Pakistani, but Muslim):
In 2009, I received an extraordinary report which documented honor killings in Pakistan. My Pakistani informant, of the SW Community Development Department, in Sind, Pakistan, sent me an unpublished paper in which he describes and explains a murderous Pakistani culture very carefully. He writes: Male control does not only extend to a woman's body and her sexual behavior but all of her behavior, including her movements, her language and her actions. In any of these areas, defiance by women translates into undermining male honor and ultimately family and community honor. Severe punishments are reported for bringing food late, for talking back or for undertaking forbidden trips, etc. A man's honor defiled by a woman's alleged or real sexual misdemeanor or other defiance is only partly restored by killing her. He also has to kill the man allegedly involved. Since [the woman] is murdered first, the [man] often hears about it and flees, aided by the fact that unlike the woman, he is both familiar with the world outside the house and can move freely in it. But [men] who escape will not be able to return to normal life. Nobody will give such a man shelter; he remains on the run until he and his family are ready to negotiate with the victim, the man whose honour the [man] defiled. The balance is restored by negotiating compensation for damages. Moreover, there are few safe places for a woman to escape to. Seeking help outside the family is fraught with danger for a woman. Not only does society blame a woman for being targeted for murder-the popular perception being that she must somehow deserve it-but by seeking outside help she risks being sent back to her husband or father in whose custody she is perceived to belong. Most important by seeking help outside, she adds shame to her husband and his family by making the issue public. No Kari ["black" woman marked for honor-killing] who escapes is ever forgiven, even if her innocence is recognized; some men are known to have traveled hundreds of miles to find and kill Karis, even years after the alleged misdeed.
More from Chesler:
Hassan could not stop being a Pakistani Muslim man. What does this mean? It means that he still felt entitled to control, monitor, harass, and physically batter his wife. When he physically punished her, it was viewed as "correcting" her mistakes. When she went to the hospital and filed a police report--when she had black eyes, bruises, cuts--he viewed her exposing him as "humiliating attacks," indeed, as "terrorist attacks." When she said that she was going to file for divorce, he viewed that as "killing him;" in addition, he began to fear that these police and hospital reports plus a divorce with such facts stated might jeopardize his dream of a pro-Muslim television network. Her attempts to defend herself from his physical violence, e.g. sitting on her, trying to run her car off the road (2007), beating her so viciously that his son from a previous marriage who lived with them had to use a whole roll of toilet paper to stanch the flow of blood, dragging her across their driveway, blackening her eyes, breaking windows (2009), etc., were seen by him as "abuse." In other words, her attempt to defend herself against his violence was something he experienced as "abusive" to him.
Many Pakistani men in America have killed their wives and their daughters. In my studies published at Middle East Quarterly, I found that honor killing victims comprised two very different groups: One victim group had an average age of 17; the second victim group had an average age of 36. Aasiya was 37 when Muzzammil murdered her. I also found that one feature of an honor killing is "overkill." The victims are tortuously murdered, burned, raped, mutilated, stoned, even beheaded, as was the case with Aasiya. At trial (which is still ongoing) it became clear that Muzzammil attacked his unarmed wife with two hunting knives and stabbed her at least 40 times before he beheaded her--a signature Islamist-era gesture.
| Comments (20)
*
Comments
Maybe life in prison with regular people will get him to where he needs to be -- realizing that he was in the wrong.
Posted by: Jim P. at February 11, 2011 1:55 AM
Um, no. This is what the death penalty is for, we put rabid dogs down to protect society, there is no difference. Posted by: Kat at February 11, 2011 4:16 AM
"Unfortunately, you sometimes hear guilty people defend themselves by appropriating the language of others' legitimate defenses ... "
This is the really stomach churning bit about this asshole's defense. It's a lot like women who claim rape when it didn't happen. It weakens the case of many women who are legitimately raped. Thankfully, nobody bought it in this case, but it speaks to this sub-human's character that he would take a shot at such a defense.
"Domestic violence to men happens, and goes underreported and is often even laughed off. Women have less muscle mass than men and are usually physically weaker, but they can do plenty of damage with a blunt object or a gun."
Speaking as a former abused husband, you start off on the right foot here, but then falter. It's not about muscle mass and ability to do damage. Obviously, most any healthy male human will win a physical battle 100% of the time against most any woman. But a man will never hit her back. He will jam his hands into his pockets and do his best to get as far away as he can, even under threat of knives and death. There is a difference between a male human and a man. A man would certainly not stab her 40 times and separate her head from the rest of her.
This little bitch with an enlarged clitoris that calls himself a man has no defense.
Posted by: whistleDick at February 11, 2011 4:56 AM
Why was it only second degree? Could they not prove he planned it? Now they can't kill him (although I'm thinking New York doesn't even have the death penalty. They should.)
Maybe life in prison will get the dog raped and stabbed to death. One can hope, and even prisoners have standards. A muslim may fight right in with those standards though, who knows. I wonder if a "true" muslim coming in and showing them his disdain will make the converted black prison muslims think twice? Probably not.
Posted by: momof4 at February 11, 2011 5:39 AM
This is why I say that any woman who willingly converts to islam should be killed immediately. It's quicker and less painful for her that way.
Posted by: brian at February 11, 2011 5:40 AM
Every generation thinks they live in an enlightened era, where systematic violence cannot reach them.
They've all been wrong. If you think this, you're wrong, too - and an attitude of "everything will be all right" is ridiculously ineffective.
Islam is bringing the Illearth Stone to you so you can bow before it, lured and sustained by the idea of subjugating others. Tolerance is not the antidote to this.
Posted by: Radwaste at February 11, 2011 5:42 AM
I don't know a lot about this case, but from what I've seen here and elsewhere, it doesn't seem to be an "honor killing". It seems like the press just jumped on that idea to sell papers.
From this clip, there doesn't seem to be any religious "honor" motivation from it at all. He certainly isn't using that as a defense, as one might expect from a religious zealot. This guy may be just an angry, bullying, needle-dicked, douche bag who happens to be from an Islamic background.
I'm not sticking up for Islam, but it doesn't seem like it can be blamed for this one. The guy is just the same kind of run-of-the-mill sicko that can be found in any culture.
Posted by: whistleDick at February 11, 2011 5:54 AM
This is how Islam treats women http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/11/photo-disfigured-afghan-woman-wins-prize/?test=latestnews To say that it is not cultural, or to try and blame it on backwards tribalism ignores cases like this one, and the one here in AZ where the guy Ran Over his daughter with his car because she was "too westernized". You want to know the saddest part? Half the time, the females in the family have been so brainwashed that they help the murderous assholes kill the girls trying to get away. These are well educated, well employed people living in civilized countries bringing this shit to our doors, and they expect to get away with it. Fuck that.
Posted by: Kat at February 11, 2011 6:10 AM
there doesn't seem to be any religious "honor" motivation from it at all.
I thought that at first, but actually, "honor killing" is really about the man's honor or the family's being harmed -- the man being humiliated by the woman. And that's here -- how dare she report him, etc.
Read the whole Phyllis Chesler piece at the link, and the other link, too (at the bottom).
Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2011 7:31 AM
There's a passage in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations, that explains -- how women, under Islam, are:
"the breeders of men, and women's honor lies in their purity, their submission, their obedience. Their shame is to be sexually impure, and it is the worst shame of all, because a woman's sexual disobedience defiles herself, her sisters, and her mother, as well as the male relatives whose duty it is to control her. No Muslim man has any standing in society if he does not have honor. And no matter how much honor he builds up through wise decisions and good deeds, it is destroyed if his daughter or his sister is sexually defiled. This can happen if she loses her virginity before she's married, or if she engages in sexual intercourse outside of the marriage -- and that includes rape. Even the rumor that she may have had sex is reason enough to label her "defiled" and lead to loss of honor for her whole family. A father who cannot control his daughters, a brother who cannot control his sisters, is disgraced. He is bankrupt socially and even economically. His family is ruined. The girl will not fetch a bride-price, and neither will her sisters or her cousins, because the mere suspicion of independent feeling and female action in their family taints them too.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2011 7:37 AM
Since the subject of how we use language to manipulate has been brought up...
"This little bitch with an enlarged clitoris that calls himself a man has no defense."
Seriously? Can we stop using "female" as an insult? Especially when discussing gender-specific violence? It does smack of the notion that one gender is lesser than the other...
Posted by: hahahathud at February 11, 2011 8:38 AM
People use both sexes as an insult when they believe the person is acting inappropriately to their sex. There's a whole website that attacks me by calling me a man with some regularity. People also do it to Ann Coulter and Hillary Clinton. A transsexual activist I know told me that weak people commonly do this to women when they're threatened by how powerful they are. Not surprisingly, my biggest detractor is a 52-year-old unsuccessful actor from New York who mentions his high school accomplishments on his LinkedIn profile. (I barely remember where I went to high school, let alone still reference it!)
Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 11, 2011 8:55 AM
The fundamental difference between us and them is this:
We derive our honor from our actions. They derive their honor from the actions of others.
That fundamental fuckup on their part is why they will never be able to join the modern world. It is a central tenet of their existence that humans are not autonomous individuals with free will and moral agency. Posted by: brian at February 11, 2011 9:46 AM
At first I thought life in prison with Bubba would be appropriate for this punk. Then I realized these sort of guys have no problem with other men or sheep. Therefore, life in a women's prison would seem to be more appropiate.
Posted by: Dave B at February 11, 2011 11:36 AM
The patriarchy leaves "battered men no legal way out"?! Are you fucking kidding me?! First of all.. pretty sure patriarchy isn't doing that, second of all.. no legal way out?! Guy, you're in America, where divorce is legal.. it's not a matter of legality, it's your "false belief" in disgusting honor killing. He's insane. To say there is no legal way out, and basically that he had to brutally murder his wife to get out is just insane.
Posted by: Angie at February 11, 2011 1:49 PM
Angie - islamists are not rational by Western standards of rationality. To grant a woman a divorce that she initiated is to lose face, which is not an acceptable "way out" for the man.
Either HE initiates the divorce, or he kills her. That's it. So, since he's legally forbidden to kill her in America and he doesn't want a divorce, there's "no legal way out."
Once you learn to reason like a crazy man, islam makes perfect sense.
Posted by: brian at February 11, 2011 1:56 PM
whistleDick: This little bitch with an enlarged clitoris that calls himself a man has no defense.
If you want to insult the guy, insult him. However, trying to degrade him by likening him to a woman is sexist. There's nothing wrong with being a woman.
Posted by: Patrick at February 11, 2011 4:17 PM
"People use both sexes as an insult when they believe the person is acting inappropriately to their sex"
Oh I know - I am guilty of it myself, but the problem with it is the REASON it's an insult - because the "other" is somehow lesser.
It ranks up there with guys calling each other gay. It's an insult because of cultural bias.
The insult-er is not implying the insult-ee is different, they are implying they are a lower form of humanity.
Posted by: hahahathud at February 11, 2011 5:09 PM
"Unfortunately, you sometimes hear guilty people defend themselves by appropriating the language of others' legitimate defenses ... This is the really stomach churning bit about this asshole's defense. "
That just screams "narcissistic personality disorder", doesn't it? Dr. Tara at Shrink4Men recently described it using an acronym I hadn't seen before, "DARVO" -- Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. The narc hijacks the victim's defense by stealing the language, and then turns it around on the victim.
I can see how Islam could be very attractive to male NPDs. They'd love a "religion" that tells them that they are Special People in God's eyes, and that all of their problems have external causes. That's exactly what a narc wants to hear. Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 11, 2011 8:28 PM
"Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. The narc hijacks the victim's defense by stealing the language, and then turns it around on the victim"
In effect, the perpetrator is attempting to "extend" the assault on a victim by attempting to subvert the mechanisms society uses against perpetrators (the police and justice system etc.), against the victim. It's really just another form of abuse. It's similar to how an abuser may call the police on a victim, effectively wielding their power against the victim, using them as the tool/weapon of abuse. People often don't recognize this as another form of abuse. Women sometimes do this against men, calling the police (or even 'big friends') for no reason and implying they felt threatened - the woman abuser may be physically weaker but she makes up for it by utilizing 'big friends' or 'the police' as the weapon. (It's also like that teacher Delynn Woodside who had a child arrested for having a sharpie, I think that's a form of child abuse, that will have a terrible affect on a child, yet she gets to appear to have clean hands, unlike more direct child abusers.)
I think the whole "narcissism" thing is totally overblown though. These days anyone does anything and someone shouts "narcissist". Like we've been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to search for the faintest signals of narcissism, our narcissism-meters set to "hyper-sensitive".
Psychologically, we enjoy it because it's a medical-sounding "tool" that we get to use to bash people 'anyone we don't like'. Don't like your brother-in-law? Just say "oh he's SUCH a narcissist!" ... it's dumbed down to the point where it's just a day to day insult for "anyone we don't like".
NPD is apparently no longer going to be recognized as a disorder, seemingly:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/narcissism-no-longer-a-psychiatric-disorder/
I say thankfully, it's really just a set of personality traits, and one that, while it may have limited application, have been very much over-vilified. I see the over-vilification of those traits as an extension of the anti-male trend, as those traits are the types typically seen in male leaders, often business leaders, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Traits that direct people to achieve great things are not inherently bad. What society is effectively signalling is a visceral kind of culturally-Marxist anti-success tear-down-anyone-who-tries-to-succeed make-everyone-equally-low impulse. We've been pathologizing all the personality traits that historically have been channeled to drive men to be competitive and successful.
Posted by: Lobster at February 15, 2011 5:43 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment