TV boss Muzzammil Hassan found guilty of beheading wife

[Developereo]

I will admit that this particular murder is newsworthy because of two points (as mentioned by Spitfighter):

- the guy ran a news channel to combat perceptions of violence amongst Muslims.
- he beheaded her with a sword (an unusal murder weapon, to say the least).

My point remains about the general portrayal of Muslims and Pakistanis, but the irony in this particular case is undeniable.

 

[StingRoy]

I was not saying if its better or not, I was just trying to point out that maybe"beheading" is the reason why people try to give a religious angle to such crimes.
Agreed Islamophobia exists, but maybe its not as irrational as everyone thinks it is?

Yeah Islamophobia exists in the western world and maybe it is just a creation of the media, but it is more to do with the author of the article on how the reality is portrayed. Fact is that the article is written to create a "maximum impact" and I think it has achieved it to quite an extent.
Hope Hassan rots in prison. Such people should be made an example on how such criminals and barbarians should be treated.

 

[Manas]

Bill Maher talking about incident on his show:

 

[Spitfighter]

Deleted.

Refer to Sohni Dharti's post.

 

[Developereo]

His name has Hussein in it, not that it stopped him from winning by a landslide.

Nobody made an issue of Bobby Jindal being a Hindu name.

And this is because they're 'Islamophobic'? There are no real issues, they're just plain ol racist?

No, they are demagogs. In bad economic times and ridiculously hyped up terrorism fears, people look for scapegoats. Statesmen resist demagoguery.

The whole country, in their largest cities? I see your point, but fortunately there are institutionalized mechanisms in place to combat intolerance. They're going to take it to court.

The point is that the majority of the public voted for the ban.

How is that a problem? So has turkey.

The law allows small Christian pendants, but disallows Islamic headscarf. It is blatantly discriminatory.

And, no, I don't agree with Turkey's ban either. The state should not be in the business of dictating dress codes.

Lol. Too much of an exaggeration there.

We already have some threads here about media attacks on Islam and Pakistan. This is well documented.

Politician or politicians?

Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, ...

You're talking as if they're saying a Muslim's life is worth only half as much as a Christian. Oh wait a minute. That's already happened, and it ain't in Europe. There's so much more.

The hype over Eurabia is real and it has real repercussions on the life of ordinary, law abiding Muslim citizens. From headscarfs in schools to minarets to demagogs bashing Muslims to score cheap points.

People are 'concerned' and rightly so. Look at how things are in Pakistan, Afghanistan and even in the UK for that matter.

In bad economic times, people get angry at all (non-white) immigrants. The Islamophobia channels their bigotry towards one group to vent out their frustrations.

Political Islam is a problem, there's no two ways around it.

The solution is to distinguish between the moderate mainstream and the extremists preaching violence. Western society needs to embrace the former and ruthlessly punish the latter.

I agree that since 9/11 there is a justified focus on Islamic extremism, but the West's response and strategy have backfired. It's time to try dialog and understanding instead of grandstanding.

 

[Roybot]

But these anti-multiculturists or whatever are not running the news channels. I mean I saw this as the 2nd top news on BBC website. Surely there are more important things to cover, and if they want to cover this story, they should at least mention any other random domestic violence homicide in western countries on their website. It doesn't have to be the 2nd top news.

I am not quite sure but as far as i know the top news thing on BBC or other such websites are based on the number of people viewing the news. Its always done by people with vested interests. Another example is, I saw the BBC news article about" Indians having small dic*s" as the top news 2 years after it was actually published. Doesn't mean that it was the top news being carried by BBC?

 

[SMC]

I am not quite sure but as far as i know the top news thing on BBC or other such websites are based on the number of people viewing the news. Its always done by people with vested interests. Another example is, I saw the BBC news article about" Indians having small dic*s" as the top news 2 years after it was actually published. Doesn't mean that it was the top news being carried by BBC?

The views of a news piece doesn't control its rankings. I've seen several times when the top ranked news was at like number 10 in most read news on BBC. BBC has this feature that allows you to see how much a news has been read.

 

[SMC]

Bill Maher talking about incident on his show:

The difference she's trying to show between any random domestic violence homicide and this particular one isn't really any big a difference to give this case such a different treatment from others. I mean woohoo, other people run away and don't brag about it, such a big difference. It's almost a difference that shouldn't even be mentioned, yet she's mentioning it like it's a huge difference.

Also, slightly off-topic, but when did muslims ask for an apology from westerners on how westerners live? What they have a problem with is the constant meddling in the affairs of muslim countries.

 

[Roybot]

The views of a news piece doesn't control its rankings. I've seen several times when the top ranked news was at like number 10 in most read news on BBC. BBC has this feature that allows you to see how much a news has been read.

As i said i wasn't sure. However its still the top read news for the BBC US & Canada section for the date 7/02/2011.

I guess this incident got more coverage cause of the ironic nature of the crime? At the end of the day the reporters and editors aren't as impartial as we would like them to be.

 

[SMC]

Here's a point I want to mention which isn't consistent with other replies but still relevant to the thread.

In western countries, I've seen several cases of women killing their partner and then getting off scot-free (no jail at all!) or get a very short jail sentence because they claim that their partner abused them - often times supported by no evidence.

In this case, the guy did the same.

Some obvious gender bias here?

 

[SMC]

As i said i wasn't sure. However its still the top read news for the BBC US & Canada section for the date 7/02/2011.

I guess this incident got more coverage cause of the ironic nature of the crime? At the end of the day the reporters and editors aren't as impartial as we would like them to be.

I think the ironic nature may have played its part, though I highly doubt that was the only difference. Again, I am not sure whether this being an ironic crime makes that big a difference so as to give the case this much bigger a coverage.

 

[Roybot]

Here's a point I want to mention which isn't consistent with other replies but still relevant to the thread.

In western countries, I've seen several cases of women killing their partner and then getting off scot-free (no jail at all!) or get a very short jail sentence because they claim that their partner abused them - often times supported by no evidence.

In this case, the guy did the same.

Some obvious gender bias here?

I think his wife had already filed for a divorce based on domestic abuse grounds. So if he claims to be being abused by his wife, there was no need for him to kill her, since he would have got divorce from his "abusive wife" anyways. I personally don't think its gender bias. If he can prove to the court that he was being "abused" by his wife, then he can go scot-free too.

 

[SMC]

I think his wife had already filed for a divorce based on domestic abuse grounds. So if he claims to be being abused by his wife, there was no need for him to kill her, since he would have got divorce from his "abusive wife" anyways. I personally don't think its gender bias. If he can prove to the court that he was being "abused" by his wife, then he can go scot-free too.

The issue I have is that many women just have to make the claim of abuse to get away scot-free. No evidence needed. I have even seen cases where from the evidence it seemed unlikely that any domestic violence took place, yet the woman's word still trumped everything. You say that he should prove the abuse, but women often don't have to. Furthermore, even if he did prove the abuse, I am not sure even then he would go scot-free or even get a seriously reduced jail sentence.

 

[Manas]

It may not look like a big difference, say in Pakistan ,but for white american ,a man beheading his wife with a sword and then bragging to the police is unusual experience as well as fits perfectly into the stereotypical routine as the man is Muslim and of Pakistani origin.Also provides ample opportunity for vested interest propaganda mongers such as this lady.

 

[SMC]

It may not look like a big difference, say in Pakistan ,but for white american ,a man beheading his wife with a sword and then bragging to the police is unusual experience as well as fits perfectly into the stereotypical routine as the man is Muslim and of Pakistani origin.Also provides ample opportunity for vested interest propaganda mongers such as this lady.

I am not really talking about Pakistani experiences but western experiences - from what I know about westerners in the decade I have lived here thus far. I am sure there are other cases of bragging to the police as well that were covered the same way as any random case. The issue of bragging isn't sufficient enough to make any significant difference.

The only difference worth pointing out is the beheading with the sword.