Marwa el-Sherbini, "Headscarf Martyr"

[Tyr]

I'm surprised at the little attention this has gotten, except on FB where I'm sure people have invited you to join groups, fanpages, and the like.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Germany 'not silent' on stabbing

Ms Sherbini was stabbed 18 times by a 28-year-old Russian identified as Alex W, who leapt across the courtroom during an appeals hearing and attacked her in front of her husband and son.
Prosecutors said the Russian, who had been found guilty in November of insulting and abusing the woman, had a deep hatred of Muslims and acted alone.

The headscarf martyr: murder in German court sparks Egyptian fury at west's 'Islamophobia' | World news | The Guardian

It was while Marwa el-Sherbini was in the dock recalling how the accused had insulted her for wearing the hijab after she asked him to let her son sit on a swing last summer, that the very same man strode across the Dresden courtroom and plunged a knife into her 18 times.

Other article (pretty much same stuff): Headscarf Martyr Marwa Sherbini Mourned In Egypt

1) Take away the variables of her being a Muslim, wearing a headscarf, and the discrimination angle of it - how do you stab someone 18-times in a courtroom? The variables just make it that much more difficult to fathom, but I mean, the guy was founded guilty late last year for a similar charge (according to BBC), and he managed to "[stride] across the Dresden courtroom!?" What!?

2) Add-in the variables. Why has this gotten such little attention in the Western media? At least, that's my perception...it seems like it's a very big deal. Say "Muhammad bin Something-something" did this to a white woman, would the reaction be the same? Definitely not...That woman would have become today's Helen of Troy.

[Lee]

It's funny that you mention "Helen of Troy", now if you actually realized that you called her a Headscarf Martyr and mentioned how Egypt was in a fury over this one case, she actually did garner a lot of attention.

And just because all people in all countries are not crying about it doesn't mean that it went unnoticed.

They're too busy with MJ anyway.

[Tyr]

I mentioned, little attention in Western media

In fact, I know that Iran staged its own protests after their Friday prayers this week, and some media outlets said it was again "because of the election," whereas it was protesting the situation in Germany...

Obviously, it's a huge deal in Egypt.

EDIT: "Headscarf Martyr" was in quotes in the title, that's the title she's been given. I don't like it, but it's the one that seems to be most used.

[Khamsin]

I could imagine him being able to get in 18 stabs, because I imagine people were probably shocked to see what he chose to do once he got all the way over there, and if he was strong enough, even all the people who leapt to the woman's aid may not have been able to hold his arm back.

More seriously, though, consider also that a white man can stab a white woman 18 times in the middle of a crowded public street in a major city, too. Something like it has even happened before, a few times, and those cases didn't get international attention. Why should this one?

What's to say this wasn't more of a case of that phenomenon where nobody helps, than everyone sitting calmly and consciously choosing not to help because of her religion?

Another thing that isn't clear is how quickly this all happened. The article implies the man stood up, stretched, strode across a large courtroom at a leisurely pace, pulled out his knife, filed his nails, adjusted his glasses, and then proceeded to stab the woman a few times while reading the morning paper. Perhaps stopping for a sip of coffee every few strikes.

[Tyr]

I understand the phenomena of crowds, but in a courtroom? There obviously were guards, because they shot her husband (or rather, her husband was shot) when he tried to stop the man. Either way, how do you think courtrooms are set up? The plaintiff and defendant aren't sitting in stabbing distance. I understand 'shock factor,' for the people in the crowds, but what's the point of the guard then? And obviously, they were armed, no question about that.

To make it clear, I'm fine with detaching the variables of gender, religious affiliation, nationality, and all of that from the case. Bottom line is, even with 'shock factor' (the phenomena to which you are referring to, mind you, is often cited in cases of large public crowds, not courtrooms with guards), how does an already-once-guilty person get to the person he's been charged against for 'racial slurs' and discrimination in a courtroom with a guard/guards, stab their accuser 18 times prior to being stopped?

I don't mean to distract from that main point, but, did he stab her with his own knife? How did he even get the knife into the courtroom?

Outside of just asking these questions, my personal opinion is that there are too many 'fishy' things going on to just say "shock factor" and call it a day.

[Jer]

I'm guessing it was a ceramic knife, since I'm assuming they at least have metal detectors at the entrances to the courthouse and not everyplace has the image detectors. 18 stabs in the middle of the court is excessive, I do not see how they let it go that far.

Wonder how easy it is going to be for him to get representation for this incident. In American there would be no end to the line willing to do it. :s

[Khamsin]

I'm guessing it was a ceramic knife, since I'm assuming they at least have metal detectors at the entrances to the courthouse and not everyplace has the image detectors. 18 stabs in the middle of the court is excessive, I do not see how they let it go that far.

Wonder how easy it is going to be for him to get representation for this incident. In American there would be no end to the line willing to do it. :s

I'm surprised the guy is still alive, and avoided getting shot by the guards. It is unfortunate they missed and accidentally hit the woman's husband instead, though. Perhaps they ran out of bullets or something and were unable to continue firing at the stabber, or holstered their weapon after shooting the husband to avoid further accidents. Who knows.

However, I strongly doubt any attorney, even in America, would represent him. Attorneys tend to like to have good winning records, and this is a sure loss. Not even Johnnie Cochran could have acquitted this guy.

I'm pretty sure an "innocent" verdict for this man will be impossible, and as such, will likely only receive state representation (if they have that sort of thing over there).

[Kuya]

I believe they shot the husband thinking he was the attacker.

[archibaldcrane]

Getting murdered without intentionally sacrificing yourself doesn't make you a martyr.

And saying "why doesn't the 'western' media report about this" - I mean, do you think there were many news reports in Egypt about Matthew Shepard?

What makes this different really? Until there's some actual evidence of a conspiracy or intentional inaction that the OP is strongly, strongly alluding to...

...yeah.

[Faris]

Getting murdered without intentionally sacrificing yourself doesn't make you a martyr.

And saying "why doesn't the 'western' media report about this" - I mean, do you think there were many news reports in Egypt about Matthew Shepard?

What makes this different really? Until there's some actual evidence of a conspiracy or intentional inaction that the OP is strongly, strongly alluding to...

...yeah.

about fuckin time about this story;

this got attention; because - a woman and her child in a playground getting called a slut/extremist/islamist etc. by a white man. then getting stabbed in court EIGHTEEN TIMES because she pressed charges is quite shocking . oh did I mention that she was also pregnant (or so i read)? again...in court...how the fuck did he pull it off, i really dont know.

She is a martyr in her religion; she was killed because of her beliefs, didnt she?

[Elvis]

We need to be more specific when we talk about 'the media' here and there.

Local press has reported on Islamophobia-motivated crimes. However, the local press is simply not as important.

(Here is another incident that happened recently: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/407916_hatecrime07.html)

In the mainstream, this story may not gain the same traction as let's say, the Holocaust Museum shooting.

And that's an institutional bias. There are TONS of other examples.

Entire books have been written on 'propaganda models' of the media.

In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman lay out 3 types of incidents that showcase this bias - bloodbaths:

1. Benign bloodbaths (we do not care about them)
2. Constructive (done by us or our allies)
3. Nefarious (done by our enemies)

In the late 70s and throughout the 1980s, there was a perfect example of this bias - the Indonesian invasion/occupation of E. Timor and the atrocities in Cambodia.

And of course, compare coverage of 'Neda of Iran' to 'Bassem of Palestine' - both non-violently protesting and both killed by 'security forces'.

That's a superficial comparison - and it is supposed to be that way. When we look at the context, we realize WHY our media covers one MORE than the other (or ignores one completely).

I don't think the Matt Shepard comparison is the same. Because it does not function on the same level.

This Muslim woman was killed because of her religion and possibly ethnicity.

We are not at war with gay nations. When we think of Islam - we inevitably think of Arabs (conjecture, but I think this is true of at least people in the West). When we think of Arabs, we will at least think of the wars in the ME.

So this is about geopolitics and religion. This is not about gender issues and sexuality (although religion affects the views on these things).

So it's more accurate (mechanism-wise) to compare this situation to the Holocaust Museum shooting than to the murder of Matthew Shepard.

Mathew Shepard and el-Sherbini are relatively more 'apples and oranges' than a hate-crime against Jews versus a hate-crime against Muslims (and this is me cutting a lot of slack here, I think the Shepard comparison is inaccurate entirely).

[Elvis]

Oh, and I don't think she was a martyr. She was murdered by a racist/bigot who was not part of an oppressive institution.

Usually we think someone is a martyr when they die in opposition to oppressive institutions.

EDIT:

Although, when I think of MLK JR. - I would clarify my above definition by saying that an individual can represent 'oppression' or that 'political antagonism' if such antagonism is mainstream in a relevant area. So the racist/bigot who killed el-Sherbini is not indicative of a mass anti-Islam/anti-Arab movement in Germany, right? There aren't tons of these incidents happening there, right?

That also does not mean the killer was an atypical hater but how his beliefs manifested are the concern here. There are plenty of racists and bigots who do not ACT on their beliefs.

We can say, that this guy acted on his beliefs which in-turn were influenced by existing institutions/upbringing/etc. - however, he himself is not a manifestation of a mass German anti-Islam/Arab movement.

And the obvious comparison I'm making is the brutality against Blacks during the Civil Rights era and before. There you could say, MLK died for a cause AND was a victim of a mass movement of racism/etc. in his country.

Firas, if we zoom out and look at the big picture - which in this case, would be 'attitudes towards Arabs and Islam in the Western world', then you could maybe make an argument that she was a 'martyr'. But still, she was not making a statement. She was exercising existing political rights.

[Faris]

Its the cause she dies for that makes her a martyr not the murderer.

Dictionary.com -
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

[Elvis]

She does not fit the first definition.

She was not 'put to death' (this implies institutional killing, like an execution).

She did not endure great suffering 'for the cause of social justice'. 'For the cause' implies her rights have not been recognized.

She already had her right to sue this guy. She endured his hate, and then brought her case before a court. The court would have likely ruled in her favor. The hater is who killed her and she was not rebelling against the institution 'keeping her down' but the hater.

The hater is not a component of the legal/moral system of Germany. Meaning, he has ZERO political clout.

[hagun]

She does not fit the first definition.

She was not 'put to death' (this implies institutional killing, like an execution).

She did not endure great suffering 'for the cause of social justice'. 'For the cause' implies her rights have not been recognized.

She already had her right to sue this guy. She endured his hate, and then brought her case before a court. The court would have likely ruled in her favor. The hater is who killed her and she was not rebelling against the institution 'keeping her down' but the hater.

The hater is not a component of the legal/moral system of Germany. Meaning, he has ZERO political clout.

Good grief, a martyr is anyone killed as a result of thier beliefs especially religious beliefs. It's not limited to self inflicted sacrifice. I can't figure out why this so difficult for you to understand. Seriously, get with the program.

[Faris]

i know right

[Plow]

However, I strongly doubt any attorney, even in America, would represent him.

my old lawyer got a case overturned against a Mexican kid in rural Kansas that shot and killed a cop when he got pulled over because they had his wife testify in court, on the grounds that they had used unreasonable emotional appeal to persuade the jury


I assure you, plenty would lol.

[Elvis]

Good grief, a martyr is anyone killed as a result of thier beliefs especially religious beliefs. It's not limited to self inflicted sacrifice. I can't figure out why this so difficult for you to understand. Seriously, get with the program.

You're just reiterating Firas's argument.

The definition is clear:

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

1. Did she suffer or die WILLINGLY? No.
2. Was she 'put to death'? No. Do you understand the language here? 'Put to death' implies execution. When we look towards the end of this second definition, we see the condition: 'on behalf [...]of [the] cause of social justice'.

The 'cause of social justice' implies she does not already have her RIGHTS. She does though! And that's why she was suing the guy. Do you think she would have LOST the case?

This was a hate-crime. She was killed because of her beliefs but that does not imply martyrdom.

You are straw manning the definition. Quite explicitly I should say, just LOOK at YOUR definition of the term. You cut out the clarifications in the TRUE definition.

[...]a martyr is anyone killed as a result of thier beliefs especially religious beliefs.

And the true meaning, via the clarification:

[...]on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

My argument deals with this part. This is where we disagree.

[hagun]

facepalm.gif

Let me draw you a picture.

Did Jeanne d'Arc suffer or die willingly? She was captured and killed. She didn't freaking ask the English for tea and a burning at the end.

Does being stab not equal to being put to death? Does death by stabbing not consider getting killed? All those who sac themselves for thier beliefs are just lunatics, right? If we go by your definition then, there are practically no martyrs.

Oh I give up least you bring me down to your IQ.

[Elvis]

facepalm.gif

Let me draw you a picture.

Did Jeanne d'Arc suffer or die willingly? She was captured and killed. She didn't freaking ask the English for tea and a burning at the end.

Does being stab not equal to being put to death? Does death by stabbing not consider getting killed? All those who sac themselves for thier beliefs are just lunatics, right? If we go by your definition then, there are practically no martyrs.

Oh I give up least you bring me down to your IQ.

There is a definition for the word. And it is not legal spittle - it is a meaningful definition.

And no, being stabbed is not the same as being 'put to death'.

Again, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Example:
If I run someone over in a car accidentally - did I murder them? Or did I kill them? I killed them. However, further clarification is necessary. It was an accident.

Our point of contention here is not that el-Sherbini was murdered or not - but the manner in which she was murdered. And execution or 'being put to death' is not synonymous with murder. People are tried by a court and sentenced to death as a manner of exacting social justice.

Execution is a manner of killing:

execution
-Noun
1. the act of executing
2. the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death
3. the manner in which something is performed; technique

execution - definition of execution by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So my point is the same - one can die as a result of their religion/ethnicity/race but that does not mean they are martyrs by default. They are victims of hate-crimes.

Further clarification is needed to designate them as martyrs - which the actual definition (and not your straw man) provides.