A brutal case of domestic violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Shamli district has reignited a national debate on Islamic attire, women’s autonomy, and coercion within Muslim families after a Muslim man was found to have killed his wife and two young daughters, following a dispute linked to his wife stepping out without wearing a burqa. This horrific incident has drawn renewed scrutiny of how “choice” and enforcement intersect in deeply patriarchal settings within the Muslim community.
The accused, Mohammad Farukh, lived with his family in Garhi Daulat village in the Babri police station area. His wife, Tahira, and their daughters, aged only 14 and 7, were reported missing, and relatives failed to contact them for several days. Farukh initially told neighbors and family members that his wife and children were staying with relatives, but inconsistencies in his account made them suspicious.
After concerned relatives alerted the police, Farukh was taken into custody for questioning. During interrogation, he allegedly disclosed that he had kept his wife, Tahira (32), under “strict purdah,” and did not allow her to step out of the house without wearing a burqa. It has been noted that the couple had been on strained terms. Tensions escalated after Tahira reportedly left for her parents’ home in Nara village of Muzaffarnagar without wearing a burqa following a heated argument, and Farukh was enraged.
According to investigators, the accused confessed to killing his wife and their two daughters. Acting on his statement, police recovered the bodies from a pit dug inside the house compound, which had earlier been prepared under the pretext of constructing a toilet. Officials said Tahira was shot with a country-made firearm after an argument; the elder daughter was shot when she rushed outside on hearing the gunshot, and the younger child was strangled.
Police also informed that one of the minor daughters’ bodies was found with an eye gouged out, and a blood-stained wooden stick was recovered from the scene. Investigators suspect the object was used to assault the child. The accused has been formally arrested and charged with murder and destruction of evidence, and forensic examinations are currently underway.
The killings have drawn widespread condemnation across society. However, notable silence has been observed from sections of the political left, Islam-aligned voices, and certain feminist groups who are otherwise vocal in opposing misogyny and patriarchal practices.
India has seen the debate over hijab and burqa play out publicly in many ways and varying intensities in recent years. Beyond the immediate crime, the case has sharpened an older, unresolved argument on whether Islamic religious garments such as the burqa or hijab are purely a matter of personal choice, or whether social and familial pressures often undermine that choice. The language of “choice” has always obscured coercion. Liberal groups and India’s feminists, who are known to align with Islamic forces, have long argued that women must be free to decide how they dress, warning that bans or stigmatization of religious attire introduced by the government of institutions infringe on individual rights. Yet when Muslims such as Farukh enforce the burqa through violence and even murder, sections of the feminist movement choose silence rather than confrontation.
Violent riots had broken out after certain states restricted the hijab in schools and colleges, with supporters framing the move as necessary for uniformity and secularism, and opponents calling it discriminatory and exclusionary. In February 2022, Karnataka had witnessed absolute lawlessness and mayhem after some academic institutions banned Muslim girls from wearing hijabs in classrooms following a dress-code decision, and Muslims took to the streets with stones and injured around 40 students and several policemen. The liberal brigade defended the Muslim women’s “right” to cover themselves.
Apart from India, the ongoing tension between choice and the enforcement of this particular Islamic garb is well-documented worldwide. In Iran, the 2022 death of Mahsa (Jina) Amini after her arrest for allegedly violating hijab rules sparked nationwide protests and international outrage, highlighting the consequences of state-enforced dress codes. In Pakistan and parts of Iraq, rights groups continue to document “honor” killings and family violence linked to perceived moral or dress-code violations. These cases vary in context and cause, but they collectively show how control over women’s bodies and appearance can turn deadly when backed by social sanction or impunity in Islamic societies.
As India navigates its secular framework amid shifting social dynamics and growing concerns over Islamic jihad recruitment driven by demographic change, political mobilization, and rising jihadist sentiment, the Shamli murders stand out as a stark warning. Unless the state confronts jihadist ideologies and insular Islamic networks taking root in pockets and ghettos, the situation risks deteriorating further in the years ahead.
Big Dude says
This is the future for Europe and the Americas, not to mention Australia. And your politicians are welcoming this because the Moslems will be bringing in votes. If I were an unconcerned citizen I would be terribly alarmed. But I am a member of that most cursed reigion, Yahood. I know what Islam and Europe did to us, what Germany and Ukraine, what Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and all the others did to us. All I can say as a member of Yahood is .. well… you know. Karma is b*tch. But… what we Saturday people get first, you Sunday people get second. Goodbye, and good luck. Gd is great. Snackbar is greater. Calories don’t count. And Europe is toast.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I have lost interest in intra-muslim squabbles. Fact remains that muslimahs are just as toxic as their male counterparts. This guy has put some breaks on the muslim population: now all that remains is that he is prevented from marrying again, much less procreating
GE says
I know you’ve said it’s widespread, but I couldn’t help but notice it’s Uttar
Pradesh—again.
somehistory says
I feel so bad for they two young daughters. Take the scum out, strangle him nearly to death, let up briefly while his eye is gouged out, then finish him with another strangle. (Strangling takes a few minutes.)
What he has done to the girls is what should happen to him.
There is a Scripture in the Bible which tells of a time coming when the evil people’s eyes and tongues will rot away while they are standing. Perhaps this punishment is awaiting the evil ghoul.
William Kemmler says
>>” Take the scum out, strangle him nearly to death, let up briefly while his eye is gouged out, then finish him with another strangle. (Strangling takes a few minutes.)”
>>”What he has done to the girls is what should happen to him.”
And you claim I’m not a True Christian (whatever that is) when I say Christians must step-up and defend the themselves and the Faith from moslem violence but yet here you are advocating for the violent death of this man. Yes, he’s committed a heinous and unforgivable crime that calls for his punishment but really, are you being a True Christian when you call for him to be strangled to death and have his eye gouged out in retaliation for the crime? Would Jesus approve of such a thing? Would a True Christian advocate for such retaliation against another person? I think not on both counts. But just goes to illustrate your hypocrisy when it comes to Christians and Christianity.
And in the end, why do you actually care at all. A moslem man kills his moslem wife and moslem children. Just another example of the barbarity and savagery that is islam writ large. Under islamic law he has not done anything wrong and most likely nothing much in the way of punishment will be imposed upon him.
Awaiting your response justifying your statements.
somehistory says
I don’t have to *justify* my statements to you. I don’t have to *justify* anything i say, write or do to you.
By the way, your comments are so much like the guy who gives his user name by the letters of his navy job. Hmmmm
William Kemmler says
No, you don’t have to justify yourself. But then I’ll just mark you with a big letter “H” for hypocrite. A hypocrite of the worst kind. A hypocrite that thinks they can sit in judgement of others and then violate the very scriptures you’ve quoted in your judgments by advocating a person be taken out and strangled and have their eye gouged out. But no, you don’t have to justify anything you say to me or anyone else.Your hypocrisy is evident either way. I’m not the one you’ll have to justify your actions with. That comes later.
And I’ve never been a member of the Navy nor associated in away with the Navy so your supposition that I’m someone else you drove off with your hypocrisy is incorrect.
somehistory says
OH, you got me now with that big old H. I’m shaking.
and the Navy guy is still around, posting when he chooses to. Just like you….
You gave me an H, I’ll give you an I, and since I’m generous, I’ll throw in an M and an S.
Canuckguy NB says
@William:
These days it is necessary to fight terror with terror. The Christian motto of ‘turning the other cheek’ doesn’t work with murderous muslims.
Walter Sieruk says
It is, or should be very obvious that “Islamic culture” is not really a genuine culture. As observed in that so very savage cruel, brutal vicious and murderous that it’s not really an actual, genuine, culture but a result of a primitive deadly religion , because of its wicked Islamic practice of “honor killing.”
The terrible term “honor killing” is alone a dishonest term. For there is no honor, at all, it’s a malice -filled murder of a young female. Just giving an evil action a better sounding title doesn’t change the wicked nature of it. It’s like scrapping off the label of that jar of cyanide which reads “Danger Poison” and replacing on that jar another label that reads “ Apple Juice.” That doesn’t change the deadly content in that jar. As it has been wisely said that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.
Walter Sieruk says
That murderous vicious affront which the House of Islam so very inappropriately calls “honor killing, ” is outright evil.
A scholar of Islam had exposed the disturbing horrible truth about the anti-female essence of Islam informs the reader that “Control of behavior and disregard for human life are key elements in Islam ideology.” Furthermore, the author also exposed that `” Women is Islam are considered unclean, deemed inferior even to dirt.” [1]
[1] THEY MUST BE STOPPED by Brigitte Gabriel, pages 171,172.
OLD GUY says
Open migration will bring this to a neighborhood near you. And just think it could be you’d daughter and grandchild that gets the muslim/islamic treatment next time.
somehistory says
Agree, Old Guy. muzzies don’t care that the females are not legal in any way for them to *treat or mistreat.* A stranger on the street is fair game.
GianCarlo MATTA says
can anyone tell me where in the damned koran it states that women must go around with their faces covered ?