Palestinian strangles wife to death after finding out she’s pregnant with girl

We’ve heard of men who have divorced their wife for failing to bear any sons,—Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon being the most famous example—but not of a man who murdered his wife for failing to bear a fourth son.

The story is from Israel National News:

Suspicion: Palestinian killed wife because she was carrying girl
Police say West Bank Palestinian choked wife to death over ultrasound results; relatives say he was jealous of brother, who has nine sons

Published: 05.13.10, 14:18 / Israel News

Palestinian police in the West Bank city of Nablus arrested a man on suspicion that he murdered his pregnant wife Wednesday night because an ultrasound examination showed that she was carrying a girl.

The couple has four children—three boys and a girl—and the father wanted another son.

Palestinian police officials said the argument that followed the ultrasound test was just one of many and that it was not the sole reason behind the murder in the village of Nasiriyah, located north of Nablus.

According to police, abrasions were found on the man’s body, indicating that the wife struggled as he was choking her to death.

Family members said the husband had tried to kill his wife following a previous ultrasound examination. Relatives said the suspect was envious of his brother, who has nine sons. They said the husband had beaten his wife in the days prior to the murder.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

I can’t believe it—the Israel National News is not an unbiased source. In any case, it could have happened as much with an Israeli as with a Palestinian. Did you check to see whether his house was up for foreclosure? Frankly I’m not sure why you’re even carrying this case—an isolated event that has exactly what bearing on America?

Are you implying that evil is localized to Palestinian circumstances? Is there no evil in Israel—or should I remind you of King David’s murder (the Bathsheba case)? At least that Jewish killing had a name attached to it but this report of the Palestinian names no people—can anonymity be a fact? My, my—a report totally devoid of historical circumstances. Even labelled “Suspicion” (first paragraph).

What machine was used for the ultrasound—do you have a registration number?

The father wanted another son? Sounds to me like innuendo and accusation coming from the totalitarian, patriarchal Jewish society. I suggest this act has more to do with an Israeli attempt to tarnish the population of the West Bank in its quest for liberation and political autonomy. Look beyond this supposed neutral and objective piece of reporting …

Roger G. writes:

It’s too late to tell this genius what that noted geneticist and embryologist Muhammad (pbuh) forgot to mention—the “fault” lies with him, the husband. He was directing the wrong sperm toward the egg.

LA replies:

You bring out a funny point. On one hand, Muslims believe that everything is ordained by the will of Allah. On the other hand, they feel dishonored by something over which they have no control, like the sex of their children.

Roger G. replies:

Much thanks. But if that was my point, I didn’t even realize it. However, now that you mention it, you’re absolutely right. I’m smarter than I thought.

As for Ben W.’s comment, at least David had the prophet Nathan to tell him what a murderous bastard he was, and David stood for it. Did anyone ever correct Muhammad without surrendering a valuable appendage or organ?

John E. writes:

Allow me first to distinguish myself from Ben W. in what I have to say. Unlike him, I find the report itself plausible and believable, but have what I deem to be an entirely different beef with a generality of which this story is an illustration.

Apparently from the way happenings are reported in the West Bank and points east, we are to believe that among their inhabitants, the women are aptly described as helpless in what we must suppose as their desire to do only good, while the men generally go about seeking whom they may devour, with an overwhelming preference, of course, for helpless women as their prey.

I make no judgment about the particular case you have posted here, except that what happened to the mother and unborn child was horrible. The effect that I described above is not accomplished with one news report, however. Nor am I suggesting some sort of equalized reporting, where we might start to hear more dirt from the Middle East that can be specifically ascribed to women. I am only asking whether it is plausible that the men of entire cultures should appear so evil while the women of entire cultures appear so saintly. Rather, I already know it is plausible that it should appear this way, but is it plausible that it actually is this way?

LA replies:

I never had the impression that Muslim women were portrayed as saintly. They are often involved in the honor murders of their daughters, for example. Then there was the infamous case of the Muslim U.S. teenager murdered by both her parents both because she was too Westernized and because they feared she knew of their terrorists activities and might inform on them. I can’t find my link to it at the moment, but the entire murder was recorded by an FBI bugging device which was not manned at the time of the murder.

At the same time, of course, the dictatorial control of women by men is built into Islam, as the belief in female inferiority. In this connection, see William Muir’s explanation of why Muhammad decreed that Muslim women must be veiled.

John E. replies:

I meant saintly only as seen through the eyes of our society, that is, helpless and victimized. I did not know, as you report, that women are often involved in honor murders, because I rarely hear of it. Do you suppose most people in the West are aware of this? Don’t you agree that the reports we hear of honor killings usually only consist of such-and-such woman was killed by her brother, father, and/or uncle, etc.—nothing more? If you want to read a report of a woman involved in such a killing, you have to search for it, as you have proven with your reply.

At any rate, it appears that you do not have the impression that I do, that the men are portrayed as much worse than the women.

Roger G. writes:

Further reply to John E.:

John E., Ben W. was being facetious. FACETIOUS! Jeez.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 13, 2010 09:13 PM | Send