A Muslim man named Shanavas killed his Hindu live-in partner, Aathira, by dousing her in kerosene and setting her alight after being provoked by her “posting videos on Tiktok”. Aathira was only 28 at the time of death.
Both had children from their previous marriages, and had been living together for the past few years near the Anchal region of Kollam, Kerala. Aathira was fond of spending time on social media and often posted videos on Tiktok or Instagram. Shanawas did not approve of this habit of Aathira, and voiced his opposition regularly, which often sparked quarrels between the two.
On June 9, Shanawas was again enraged by a recent video Aathira had uploaded on the video-sharing platforms, which led to a severe squabble in the house.
At around 7 pm, their neighbours rushed to the house upon hearing the spine-chilling screams of the 28-year-old, and were terrified after witnessing Aathira, engulfed in flames, trying to run away from Shanavas. They put out the fire, informed local police and hurried her to the Taluk hospital, but her severe burns demanded special treatment. She was transferred to the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, but soon succumbed to her injuries.
As per reports, Shanawas tried to self-immolate as well and suffered burns over 40% of his body, but he survived, and has been taken into police custody. Police have filed murder charges against him.
Now this is not one isolated case of a Muslim partner becoming angered over a Hindu partner’s social media activities and taking her life. Back in January 2020, 25-year-old Ayaj Ahmad, a delivery boy employed with an online food delivery company, bludgeoned his 22-year-old wife Reshma Manglani to death after being suspicious due to her Facebook usage. The couple had met at work, eloped, married some two years ago and had a 3-months-old baby.
The young wife spent “too much time” on Facebook and had gathered some 6000 followers on the site. This triggered suspicion in Ahmad’s mind about Reshma having an affair, which led to frequent fights, due to which Reshma had returned to her parents.
On the night of the incident, Ahmad went to Reshma’s parent’s home on the pretext of sorting things out and convinced her to reconcile with him. The couple then went on a ride together on the husband’s two-wheeler. He stopped in a deserted area, strangled her to death and crushed her face with a rock to keep her from being identified. But he was nevertheless soon arrested by the local police on charges of murder.
While modernists, liberals and leftists try to normalize interfaith marriages in the Indian subcontinent, especially when those of a Muslim man marrying and a Hindu woman, they become dreadfully silent about the catastrophic outcomes of some of these marriages, which, in most cases are not very pleasant. Young Hindu girls being killed for refusing romantic advances by men from the Muslim community is almost everyday news in India. Yet feminists who can’t emphasize women’s rights enough, do not say a word about a woman’s right to say “No” when the perpetrator who killed a woman as a reaction to her “No” is a Muslim.
Some Hindu women who have married Muslim men have reportedly been slaughtered, sliced to pieces, packed up in suitcases and abandoned. Many were pressured to sleep with the male relatives in the family on a routine basis. Refusal could lead to violence, assault and rape.
The culture clash between Islamic attitudes and those of other religions that are more tolerant of societal changes is real. For how long are we going to avoid addressing this issue? The “kaffir” woman is not as submissive to her man, as a Shanawas or Ahmad would want her to be. The “infidel” woman was not raised with the conditioning that she will have to keep herself covered head to toe in one dull color, or that she will have to obey the man and respond to every word he utters with absolute submission. Hence when the newness of the romance fades, many women find themselves trapped in a difficult and dangerous reality.
In other news, a Hindu woman Sajitha, missing for 11 years, was rescued from her Muslim neighbor’s house just 500 meters from her own in Palakkad, Kerala. She was 18 years old when she went missing, and had spent the past decade in a single room with Alinchuvattil Rahman, with no phone available. Rahman’s parents also shared the house, but they claimed that they had no idea of Sujitha presence in the house, as that room was always locked. When interrogated, Sujitha stated that she was in love with Rahman and wanted to continue living with him. Her long isolation suggested otherwise, and gave the impression that she may have come to sympathize with her captor.
Savvy Kafir says
Islam creates heartless savages capable of the most horrific crimes! We see it over and over again, around the world, wherever there are Muslims — which is just ONE of the MANY reasons we cannot allow them to remain in the West. Our goal must be ZERO Muslims in the civilized world, no matter how much money, manpower, and bloodshed it requires. That is the ONLY way the West will remain free, safe, and civilized. A glance around the world, at ANY area where Muslims were allowed to maintain their foothold and continue to multiply, proves this beyond any reasonable doubt.
Wellington says
Savvy Kafir: I agree that zero Muslims (or almost zero) in the West would be ideal, but how is this going to be accomplished when Islam itself, unlike, say, Nazism, is treated with kid gloves by a bevy of useful idiots here in the West?
I would settle for Islam just properly being characterized as something iniquitous (like Nazism) and thereafter one could remain a Muslim in the West just as one can be a Neo-Nazi here in America, but such people would be looked upon as pariahs (and immigration policies would of course need to be changed forthwith). I think if this occurred, this would be enough to save the West from what Islam intends for all the West.
Proper characterization of evil is enough for a free society to survive. Banning an evil belief system is not necessary and indeed presents other problems where liberty is concerned. What is necessary is that something which is evil not be looked upon as good or innocuous.
Not there yet. Not even close to being there yet. Herein lies the principal problem.
Savvy Kafir says
Wellington — Islam poses a unique threat, and requires a unique response and a unique remedy. If we fail to amend our Constitution so that Muslims can be deported en masse, eventually the Constitution will be replaced by Sharia. Amend it or lose it! The same sort of thing applies to other Western countries.
I don’t think that publicly labeling Islam as an evil ideology will be enough to save us, because Muslims are taught to despise infidels and the opinions of infidels. In fact, openly declaring Islam to be a hostile ideology might cause many Muslims to become more “extremist”, adopting the us-versus-them worldview that all Muslims are supposed to hold.
Ridding the West of Muslims would be a truly massive undertaking, possibly on the scale of World War 2, in terms of the expenditure and the effort required. But it is the only real, long-term solution, now that we’ve made the suicidal mistake of allowing the enemy within the gates. Part of the strategy would likely involve using the military might of the West to temporarily seize control of coastal territory in one or more Muslim-majority countries, just long enough to set up relocation centers for deported Muslims. Part of the expenses could be covered by seizing Muslim assets in the West, and by stopping all aid to Muslim countries.
Of course, none of this is even remotely possible until sensible, Islam-savvy, freedom-loving patriots gain political control of Western governments, via educating the public/ voters (ideally, but obviously that’s easier said than done), or via civil war, violent revolution, etc. Whatever it takes, it’s gotta happen!
Wellington says
Well, good luck with the course of action you propose. I do not think it is necessary as long as Islam is accurately identified as a mortal enemy of liberty, but we do agree on the menace which is Islam and that’s a good start.
I would also add that, constitutionally speaking, while my proposal involves numerous obstacles, your proposal “invites” even many more obstacles on top of mine. Good luck with that and what are your proposals to achieve what you want? I have offered mine.
gravenimage says
I don’t think that our amending the Constitution for Muslims would be a good thing.
Just stop importing them, crack down of Islamic savagery, and begin deporting the worst Jihadists.
latha says
The military, FBI, Homeland Security & police should collectively capture the Govt in a civil disobedience movement to prevent America from getting destroyed. They should do this out of patriotism. I think all right thinking intelligent patriotic Americans will cooperate & come up with ideas & active participation since guns are also allowed in the US. But your security forces seem to be spineless.
gravenimage says
Odd how some professing a love of freedom are actually calling for military coups.
Wellington says
I will state again what I did a couple of years ago or so here at JW and it is this: I taught a young Hindu woman from India (and she was both brilliant and beautiful) and when we had a private moment together after class the matter of Islam came up and she told me that her grandmother, also Hindu of course, told her to never get involved with a Muslim man. I said to this student that her grandmother is a very wise woman and she heartily agreed and told me that no way would she ever get “hook up” with a Muslim—a Christian, an agnostic, et al. possibly, but absolutely no Muslim.
I strongly suspect that while there are Hindu women who get involved with Muslim men, a very large majority of Hindu women never would. Just a “hunch.”
Infidel says
In India, I once had a conversation w/ somebody about inter-faith marriages. I’ve had friends there who married a Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Sikh and so on. While we had this discussion, he suggested that while even Christians were okay, despite being that different, muslims were not
I pointed out to him something unique about muslims – something I had read years ago on islam-watch, which was a site at the time dedicated to enticing muslims to apostatize. I pointed out that w/ muslims, there are separation rules to follow in case of inter-faith marriages. For starters, muslim girls couldn’t marry non-muslim men w/o the latter first converting to islam. For muslim men, they were encouraged to romance non-muslim girls, marry them and then convert them to islam. Even in the event that they couldn’t convert the wives, they could still ensure that their offspring were muslim. Oh, and one big thing: once the marriage was over, the converted spouse was expected to sever all familial relations w/ his or her non-muslim family unless and until they too convert to islam
W/ the other faiths, it’s a give and take, or a live and let live: I’ve seen stories of Hindus and Christians having dual marriages – one in a church under Christian ceremonies, the bride in a white gown and the ‘Here comes the bride’ tune when she comes in, as well as another in Hindu settings. I wouldn’t trust any of that w/ muslims
gravenimage says
+1
Infidel says
I thought that TikTok was banned in India after the Galwan clash last year. Wonder how she got to use TikTok given that situation. As for the affair itself, the moment I read the word ‘Kerala’, I decided ‘Say no more’! That is a state, if India could carve out of itself and float it across the Arabian Sea to join Pakistan, both countries would be better off
gravenimage says
Yes–TikTok seems to have been banned in India last September. The article mentions Facebook and Instragram, though.
gravenimage says
India: Another Muslim man kills his Hindu partner for using social media
……………
This *poor woman*.
God, I hate Islam.
OLD GUY says
Won’t these wonderful muslim/islamic men make fine neighbors. If Biden Harris have their way these men will becoming to America. They are not coming to improve your neighborhood by the way.