Here’s what “choice” means for Muslims

‘Devout Muslim’ who dealt heroin subjected his wife to a year of ‘hell’ and terrorised her into wearing a veil after she said she wanted to go to college

  • Jubel Miah, 21, from Burnley ripped her tongue and kicked and punched her
  • Miah was jailed for 16 weeks after admitting common assault by beating
  • He was convicted of possessing heroin with intent to supply when he was 17


A devout Muslim who subjected his battered wife to a year of ‘hell’ after he terrorised her into wearing a veil has been jailed but may go free – in just eight weeks.

In other news:

Savages through and through

Syrian Child Screams About Killing Non-Muslims While Waving al-Qaeda Flag

  • This is how they breed their off-spring to behave and think. You want to send some more monies to Syria to “help” them out? Continue reading »

CAIR Compares Critcs to Terrorists (FSM)

You may think the Islamic spokesturd of CAIR, Nihad Awad, is some kind of retard. But when it comes to ‘defending the faith’ he becomes your typical rabies spewing savage:

Instead of vowing to end the violence in the name of Islam, CAIR tries to take advantage of it in a way that might have even its own supporters wincing.

Jubel Miah, 21 – who in 2010 was sent to a young offenders institute for possessing heroin with intent to supply – had ordered his terrified spouse to wear a full niqab after she said she was going to college to study.

Initially he called her a ‘slag and b****’ for wanting to better her education, then sneered: ‘You are a married woman. You don’t do this.’

The unnamed wife only agreed to wear the full face veil, with just eye holes after thinking he would stop him making her life a misery.

But instead Miah began beating her – initially because she was not smiling during Eid celebrations with family.

During a catalogue of violent and controlling behaviour, Miah from Burnley, Lancashire, ripped her tongue, kicked and punched her, inflicted black eyes on her and battered her confidence.

He also tracked her movements using his mobile phone, tried to stop her going to college, accused her of cheating and falsely claiming there were ‘spies’ in their loft.

When the victim became pregnant she was found to have injuries to her body and eye when she went to hospital for a 16-week check-up.

And when she later went through a traumatic birth delivering a premature baby, Miah was so enraged that a male doctor was treating his wife afterwards, a female medic had to be brought. He was also very irate and threatening to people trying to help the family.

The wife finally escaped from his clutches after he subjected her to a sustained attack in which he stabbed her with scissors and hit her with a dumbell.

Details of her ordeal emerged at Burnley magistrates court as Miah was locked away for 16 weeks after admitting common assault by beating.

He was also given an indefinite restraining order to keep him away from the victim. The sentence means Miah could be free in just two months for good behaviour. The maximum sentence he could have faced was six months.

After the case Rachel Horman, head of the domestic violence division at law firm Watson Ramsbottom, said: ‘The sentence is an insult to the victim and people will view the punishment as a slap on the wrist.

‘There has been a prolonged 12-month ordeal, so why was only one charge brought? It’s absolutely shocking and it makes me really angry.

‘If this was an attack by a stranger in the street, I can guarantee it would have been a different story. Domestic violence is often under-sentenced and too much blame is given to the victims.’

Earlier, prosecutor Miss Charlotte Crane said the beatings began after Miah ‘interrogated’ his wife about going to college and wearing the veil.Read more: 

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

2 thoughts on “Here’s what “choice” means for Muslims”

  1. Are there legal problems if we post pictures of these muslim thugs on line, to enable proper identification and an appropriate response??

  2. Kaw,

    If I remember correctly, in some cases when images of the criminal was posted in the UK. The criminal, had successfully challenged their image being posted as a breach of THEIR Human Rights… Blech! Pathetic.

    And get this.

    In the last couple of months, there has been two cases in the UK where two Muslim woman were in court on theft and fraud cases. In both cases, the women insisted that they must not be viewed without their burqas despite not wearing them in their normal daily life. Just for court it appears.

    In both cases, the British media tracked down their images without the burqa and published them. Ha! Ha!

Comments are closed.