Pakistani wife kills, cooks husband for lusting over daughter

Submitted by xtrnl on Tue, 2012-01-03 18:39

Article here. Excerpt:

'It all began on Friday when neighbors in the Pakistani town of Karachi smelled a foul odor coming from the residence where Bibi and Abbas lived...

When police arrived, they discovered the dismembered parts of Ahmed Abbas stuffed into boxes. After talking to Zainab Bibi about the dead man, investigators say the wife admitted to killing her husband because he wanted to engage in a physical relationship with their 17-year-old daughter...
...
It is sad that one person had to die, especially in the manner that Abbas did. However, customs, morals, and the religions of India and Pakistan forbid incest. As such, it is understandable why Zainab Bibi felt compelled to take her husband's life. Hopefully, she finds the peace in her alleged heinous crimes, and the family and community heals from it.'
--------
There you have it, folks. Vigilante justice against men is OK, as long as the murderer is female and her religion finds a flaw in her victim. Considering the murderer is mentally unstable enough to be a cannibal, you would think people would take what she says with a grain of salt, and consider the possibility that she made everything up because she wanted to kill her husband. Sadly, people love to just assume men are dirt bags.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

This is the Daily Mail's article.

According to them, the 17 year old girl was the man's stepdaughter, not daughter as the first article said. Also, this article also says that he never actually laid a hand on the girl, he only talked about doing so when he was drunk. Even if he really did say those things, did he truly deserve to die? He never physically harmed anybody!

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Tue, 2012-01-03 18:51

She said. He didn't. He dead!
She said. She said. She said.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Wed, 2012-01-04 00:12

... assuming that what has been reported is true, did it not occur to the wife-murderer that she could have gone to the police or taken the daughter somewhere else until such a time as her concerns were addressed? She also could have taken her concerns to religious authorities as well who would probably have found the accusations most serious and undoubtedly would have gone at least to talk about them with her husband. Contrary to popular belief, if a woman in a Muslim country (including Pakistan) wants a divorce for reasons associated with her husband's violation or intended violation of an important religious tenant, she can usually get it. In fact contrary to popular belief, women in Muslim countries have a whole lot more say over how or whether they are married than feminists in the west would have you believe. Does it mean everything is hunky-dory even-steven under their laws? No. Same way they aren't under ours, either. You can find problems in both sets of laws governing matrimonial matters. Which system is better for whom however is the point to be argued. I don't for a moment pretend to pass myself off as a legal authority regarding marriage and divorce in Muslim countries or Pakistan in particular, but as you know, Google makes everyone a f****ng genius, doesn't it? So here goes: http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e59.html, from it:

'2. WOMEN'S RIGHT TO DIVORCE IN PAKISTANI LAW

Family Law in Pakistan is in adherance with the principles of the Hanafi madhhab.

The Dissolution of Marriages Act of 1939 in Pakistan provides the woman the facility of obtaining what is called "judicial divorce" by decree of a court. Section 2 of this Act paraphrased below stipulates the grounds whereby this dissolution of marriage can be sought by the woman:
1. husband's whereabouts unknown for 2 years
2. husband's full delinquency in providing maintenance for 2 years
2a. husband's polygamy on an illegal basis
3. husband's imprisonment for 7 or more years
4. husband's delinquency in performing marital obligations for 3 years
5. husband's impotence at time of marriage and up to application
6. husband's insanity for 2 years, leprosy, or virulent venereal disease
7. wife having been given in marriage before 16 years of age and repudiating the marriage before 18, provided marriage was not consummated
8. husband's cruelty such as:

a. habitual assault or even non-physical ill-treatment

b. associating with prostitutes or leading an infamous life

c. attempting to force her into prostitution

d. disposing of her property or preventing her rights over it

e. obstructing observance of her religious duties

f. not treating her equitably according to Qur'an if he has more than one wife

Source: Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, "Women's Rights in Islam" (Lahore: Ashraf, 1991), p. 60-61.'

At the least, looks to me like 8 (a) and (b) would apply, and I am sure there are plenty of other laws that concern incest that would be applicable too (if he had actually done anything). Plus, according to the Mail article, the husband was drunk and while the legal prohibition doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in Pakistan at the moment (see here), it's another thing she could have gone to the authorities about. In short, there was a whole lot she could have done far short of A) Murdering him and B) Cooking him, in that order.

Neither article mentions whether the authorities in Pakistan intend to pursue criminal charges against the murderer. I am guessing they will not. And need I say it: Just reverse the sexes in this case, and what do you suppose would be happening right now?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2012-01-04 00:14