MY INITIAL reaction to the news that an Iranian man is to blinded, following an acid attack on a young woman he had been stalking, so unsettled me that I found myself quite unable last week to post a report about the case.
“Good!” I exclaimed when I read that a Tehran province criminal court had ordered Majid Movahedi, 27, to be blinded with acid in both eyes in response to a plea from his victim, Ameneh Bahrami. Sickened as I was by the crime , I was horrified more by my knee-jerk approval of the sharia-based tit-for-tat sentence.
According to the Guardian Bahrami was left horrifically disfigured after Movahedi threw a jar of acid in her face as she walked home from work in a busy Tehran neighbourhood in October 2004. She had previously complained to police about being threatened and harassed by Movahedi, who she had known while they were both university students, but had been told no action could be taken.
Since the attack, Bahrami has undergone 17 operations, some by surgeons in Spain, in an unsuccessful attempt to reconstruct her face. Her injuries led to the loss of one eye and left her blind in the other. The Iranian government has paid £22,500 towards her treatment.
Testifying in Movahedi’s presence, Bahrami told the court that she wanted
To inflict the same life on him that he inflicted on me.
Asked by the judge if she wanted Movahedi’s face to be splashed with acid, she replied:
That is impossible and horrific. Just drip 20 drops of acid in his eyes so he can realise what pain I am undergoing.
Today, I was forced to re-assess my initial reaction when Freethinker reader Adam Tjaavk sent me a link to a feature that threw this picture up on my screen.
Naeema Azar, pictured with her son, Ahmed Shah, who takes care of her. Photo: Nicholas D. Kristof/The New York Times
I recoiled with horror. “If Ameneh Bahrami looks anything like that,” I thought, “then perhaps Movahedi deserves his punishment.”
The woman pictured with her 12-year-old son is Naeema Azar, a Pakistani who, according to this report by Nicholas D Kristof in the New York Times:
Had once been an attractive, self-confident real estate agent. Acid had burned away her left ear and most of her right ear. It had blinded her and burned away her eyelids and most of her face, leaving just bone.
The perpetrator of this terrible crime was her ex-husband Azar Jamsheed, who was never arrested, and has since disappeared.
Kristof revealed:
Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies: they are poor and female. The first step is simply for the world to take note, to give voice to these women …
Since 1994, the Progressive Women’s Association has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only two percent of those cases was anyone convicted.
He added:
Here in Pakistan, I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorise and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region.
Islam is associated with enough atrocities without also having to stand accused of encouraging acid attacks on females. But the fact remains that this horrible, barbaric religion, more than any other, demands that women be subjugated and dehumanised. And out of subjugation and dehumanisation flows hatred and contempt.
After all, isn’t the burqua an open-and-shut case of disfigurement lite?
See also this report, posted last month.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
December 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
We shouldn’t disfigure him, this is attempted murder, the shock could kill, put him in prison for life and allow other inmates attack him, the coward.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It’s nice to see this called terrorism for once. If a real “war on terrorism” existed, this is the sort of thing it would be fighting against.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The man who did this appeared to have serious mental issues. According to The Times on Friday 28th Dec, he had said to the court that be did this: “so that no one else would ever love her and she would come to me” (I’m paraphrasing from memory). He was reported to be emotionally unstable and immature. It didn’t seem that he was acting for religious reasons as much as his emotional ones.
I do not mean to excuse his crime, I think that what he has done is abhorrent, but if justice is to be anything but a mockery, we cannot condone such cruel punishment. I understand the poor woman involved wants him to suffer, and I sympathise with her, but to willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights.
Perhaps the social mentality if Iran is so immature that a strong deterrent is needed to stop this treatment of women, this case may be justified on a utilitarian basis. I have a feeling that it will change nothing however.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am
“put him in prison for life and allow other inmates attack him”
Unfortunately, i suspect in the culture of the region they will be slapping him on the back and congratulating him for “keeping her in her place”
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
This has precious little to do with the specific religion – similar things are common in the Hindu parts of India. The response should never be cruel and unusual punishment – and certainly never ‘an eye for an eye’. We (society at large) are supposed to be better (more humane, more decent) than the perpetrator.
Also, a large part of the state’s response should be to try to stop this sort of thing happening again. Violent forms of punishment are not effective in this regard. Far better to build a society in which violence, killing and abuse is shunned – with the state taking the lead.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I am afraid my response will not be popular. If I had a child and someone did that to them I would have no problem with this punishment. Surely by now people will have learnt that turning the other cheek will not work with these people! If you suspected, for one second, that the same could be done to you, I doubt it would happen as much as it does.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
As an atheist, the term, “Vengeance is mine, said the lord” is out of the window a is “He’ll get his when he meets his maker”. If someone knowingly and willingly commits murder (providing the victim is not a murderer), I see no reason why society (even a ‘civilized’ one) should not (humanely) terminate that person’s life. Society has too many problems that it can ill afford to cosset these animals in a life of relative luxury for the remainder of their natural lives. The blinding of the thrower of the acid, suggested above is outside any bounds acceptable by society. A few years starving in an Iranian gaol plus financial support of the blinded woman for life would seem more appropriate, to me.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Punishment should be about prevention, not revenge. Sometimes the two are aligned. Usually they are not. The state should not sanction settling scores or ‘punishing’ people by killing or injuring them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Tom Rees, where did you get that load of cr@p. The state should be punishing the guilty, not pandering to the (guilt ridden) liberal left, otherwise there is no justice.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Newspaniard I agree, too often the victims suffer and criminals cosseted. The whooly thinking of helping offenders such as this is naive, it does not work. String the bastard up!
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Life in prison, no parole. Dripping acid into this man’s eyes would make the state as barbaric as he is. I don’t think an Iranian prison would be “relative luxury”. I’m not guilt ridden – I am an adult with some control over my reflexes.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Joe Fogey. Some of my message seems to have been mis-interpreted. Of course I don’t condone any torture, acidic or other. You are right, that would bring the state down to the level of the perpetrators. BUT, there comes a time when the line is overstepped and prison just will not do, a case in point is murder as I described above. When there is no doubt as to the identity of the low life who commited such an act then society has no further use for them, they are vermin and, as such, should be destroyed as are Rabid animals.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Agree with Joe, Tom R and Ed.
I’d also like to point out that in any decent judicial system, the victim would not be asked to decide the punishment of the accused. It’s ridiculous.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 am
I’ve always been of the opinion that judicial systems should be based around rehabilitation (which in itself works towards prevention of future crimes), not punishment.
Punishment doesn’t work. That’s obvious. The death penalty doesn’t work, prison sentences don’t work, martial law doesn’t work, torture doesn’t work.
The very fact that these “methods” have been around for hundreds / thousands of years is testament to their ineffectiveness; the fact that they’re *still needed* shows that they don’t work.
In the UK especially, I think the police/courts (how…how do you refer to the whole area devoted to dealing with criminals? Judicial system? Whatever) have begun to take lessons from the NHS. The NHS has learned over the years that treatment of diseases doesn’t work all that well when that’s all you focus on; it’s far more effective (cost-effective as well as generally effective in lowering injury/illness) to focus on preventing illness/injury from happening in the first place.
I will state, however, that I have absolutely no idea how to actually enforce this or put it into action, especially in a country like Iran which has a pretty violent/oppressive way of life to begin with.
I do know that I’m opposed to “eye for an eye” style punishment, and I know that I’m opposed to physical punishment of crimes.
This is an emotional issue, which is perfectly understandable. But emotions have no place in the law system. The entire UK court system is designed almost specifically to eliminate any emotional aspects to deciding guilt/punishment.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am
ME. Capital punishment DOES work. No re-offending, which is what we want… Right?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 am
ME, I have never heard so much liberal bollocks in my life. Due to nonsense like this, this country is in a mess. For the last 30+ years people have forced that opinion on this country and it has had a massive decline in basic’s like manners and respect for others. If the crime warrants severe punishment then that should be the case. People like yourself would probably send the offender on a holiday for ’stress’. Grow up.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
ME. Capital punishment DOES work. No re-offending, which is what we want… Right?
Timothy Evans didn’t re-offend either,or offend for that matter!
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I’m not in favour of capital punishment. It can only compound the misery. I agree with Tom Rees and ME. Does Tony E think there are better manners and more respect in countries where there is a death penalty? As a humanist atheist I like to think that we should be trying to make the world a better place by encouraging education and understanding. Educated people tend to be less religious. They also tend not to commit murder.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I am amazed to see people condoning capital punishment here. I would have thought us atheists would know better, seeings as how we think that we only get one life! What gives anyone the power to take that away?
What does no – doubt mean in relation to the burden of proof required to convict someone of murder? If we have someone who is guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ like we currently have, is that the same as ‘no doubt’, or do we have to be absolutely sure this person committed the act? How do we achieve this?
Tony E: have never heard such conservative bollocks in all my life.
If you’re of the opinion that people shouldn’t be taking the lives of others, i.e. committing murder, then you are a hypocrite to be saying that some people, i.e. the state, can take the lives of others. And besides, capital punishment doesn’t work, look at USA.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
newspaniard:
“ME. Capital punishment DOES work. No re-offending, which is what we want… Right?”
No. It doesn’t. Check the states in America that have capital punishment compared to the states that don’t have capital punishment. The murder rates are mostly the same. In fact, the differences that *are* there is a lower murder rate in states without capital punishment.
Hell, it’s even *more expensive* to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for life.
It costs $805,000 to keep a 25 year old inmate in prison for 50 years (assuming ~75 year lifespan). It costs nearly $2 million more than $805,000 (so $2.5-3m) to carry out a death sentence. Why? Constant appeals from the inmate (how many people sentenced to death just say “ok fine cool”), various extra costs involved in hiring people to actually carry out the deed, paperwork etc…
And this is *per inmate*.
To add to what I said earlier, punishment doesn’t stop people comitting crimes. This is because no one who commits a crime expects to be caught. You have never thought about that? No one commits a murder thinking “Man when I get caught I only get a 10 year sentence” or “when I get caught I’ll be killed”, they think “I am going to get away with this crime” (mostly, anyway, barring the few that turn themselves in or whatever).
That was a point I was getting at earlier. Punishment doesn’t work because no one expects to be caught and punished. The way to reduce crime is to increase the liklihood of catching the criminals in the first place, or to work towards a society where crime is less likely to happen in the first place.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:37 am
As someone studying legal theory academically, I can say that the urge for retributive justice in cases like this overwhelms me. When I look upon the faces of these women who have been victimized their entire lives by the threat of gendered violence and real subjugation that enables such crimes, I want nothing more than to provide “just desserts” for the deranged lunatics whose individual psychoses or dogmatic cultural beliefs makes them feel like such atrocities are justified.
Women who were burned with acid have been victimized at least four times: first by a culture that provides a script to justify these acts, second by their tormentors, thirdly by a country that cares nothing for their safety, and fourthly by a world that has decided that the disgusting state of women’s rights abroad, and at home, are nothing more than the trifling pet issues of crazed feminists and drugged hippies.
The question of what punishment he deserves is irrelevant to me. The real question is what sort of closure these women deserve. They deserve any sort of retribution they see fit. If they feel that their pain will be somehow alleviated by the death or deliberate maiming of their victimizers, who am I to say no? After all, there isn’t a cop in the world who could stop me if some psychopath decided that acid was an acceptable tool to punish someone close to me.
These women deserve to know that their country and the world thinks that they matter. The burning of their faces was the ultimate act of dehumanization. I say by showing no mercy, we do all that we can to prove that just because some deranged lunatic thinks that she doesn’t matter doesn’t mean that we do.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am
ME & ED HAZ: Obviously the opinions of the Right and Left (us) will always differ, which is as it shuld be. I did say earlier that there should be positively no doubt as to the guilt of the murderer. Even jokingly you can’t honestly cite the American justice system where money making and publicity for the legal protagonists is the prime concern. There is a saying that rich people don’t go to gaol in America and from this side of the Atlantic, that’s the way it looks. If a person is guilty, then end of story. No amount of appealing over legal technicalities will change that. If there is ANY doubt, then the death sentence does not apply. Not all atheists are wishy-washy.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’m deeply opposed to corporal punishment and the death penalty, but when I look at this woman’s face and think of all the other women suffering the same at the hands of their husbands, family and so called ‘community’ it does make me feel that death is the only solution. However, we cannot possibly decide on a life and death, we cannot take death into our own hands, otherwise where will it stop? Just like the government and religion has no right to tell a person to carry on living even though they are in tremendous pain, we cannot condemn a person to death, no matter how terrible the crime. If one person could decide who lived and who died, what kind of power is that? It’s frightening. It’d work fine with black and white cases like this, but you can’t apply one law to some and a different one to others. There will always be cases where the perpetrator could well be innocent. Think about the Guildford Four, all accused of carrying out a bombing and the judge said that he wished he could sentence them to death. Fifteen years later, they were not only innocent, they had been locked up for a crime they had nothing to do with. It was a police conspircy and a public baying for blood that led to laziness, rash decisions and then allowing prejuidice to go before a proper investigation. Oh, and beating the crap out of them. There’s corporal punishement to (okay, yes, I saw this in the film ‘In the Name of the Father’, but my point remains valid).
How can you completely prove someone is guilty? Unless, by some miracle, there is a video of someone perpetrating the crime, but even then it could be fake. A confession could be coerced and even made up in the mind of the mentally ill.
Also, think of this; what if it had been the other way round? What if the woman had used acid to attack the man? She’d be punished the same way no matter what reason. Would an eye for an eye punishment be justified in this case? An Iranian law would not hesitate because a man’s testimony would be the same as the woman being guilty.
We HAVE to be rational. It’s difficult to be rational in cases like this, especially when we know that there’s no God to punish the guilty, but we owe to those potentially innocent who are victim to religious regiemes like Iran.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Rozi: The guilt or innocents is supposed to be decided by the jury, they, anonymously could/should decide whether, from the evidence, it was ‘likely’ that the crime was committed by the accused or that the evidence showed without a shadow of doubt that he/she was guilty of cold blooded murder. In the latter case bring out the scaffold. I don’t believe this choice is offered to current jurys. Another point to consider is where there is a case of uncertainty and the evidence which provided absolute proof, yet was suppressed owing to a ‘technicality’ at the request of the defence, should be allowed. No names, but a recent case of the torture and murder of a child gave no cause to doubt who the perpretators were, and I would have been quite happy to operate the scaffold in their case. They are already protected by a shield of anonymity. Their gaol sentence will be commuted after a few years and then they will receive police protection for the remainder of their lives. This country describes its courts, “Courts Of Justice”, where in fact, they are no such thing, they are, “Courts Of Law” and there is no room for, Blind Justice. The foregoing sounds a bit like a rant, I really am NOT a Facist, but this country seldom grants justice to the victims of violent crime. Don’t you just hate it when some bright spark says, “Yes, but the villain is also a victim”, Like, Tony E said, “…bollocks…!”
December 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Of course, I meant to write ‘innocence’ not ‘innocents’.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:59 am
“Islam is associated with enough atrocities without also having to stand accused of encouraging acid attacks on females. But the fact remains that this horrible, barbaric religion, more than any other, demands that women be subjugated and dehumanised. And out of subjugation and dehumanisation flows hatred and contempt.”
How on earth are you jumping to such a conclusion? Islam very, very clearly condemns this sort of behavior, and the woman, who is a devout Muslim is seeking her solution via the shari’a not in spite of it. You’ve *totally* distorted the facts to suit your anti-Islamic bias.
December 16th, 2008 at 3:36 am
What a brave woman. Blood money or jail will never be punishment enough. Having this stalker and abuser of women feel the same pain and suffering for the rest of his useless life is justice for his poor victim. Anyone who disagree or feel sympathy for this loser should be ashame of themselves because it is bleeding hearts like them that lets these lose loose in our society.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Good for you, Ameneh!!
This is EXACTLY (and literally) what “an eye for an eye justice” is all about!
Stay strong and punish this bully, this coward, this Majid Movahedi who did this to you. He deserves worse than blinding (but that’s a good and appropriate start). He probably expected a monetary fine and some minor jail time, if anything at all, for his abhorrent crime. I hope he suffers 1000 times what you have.
Know and understand that people support your decision for equal justice.When this fool is blind, then he will be unable to do this to anyone again. Does anyone believe he would NOT do it again?? I don’t.
And, perhaps worst of all, he allegedly did this because he loved her!?!? Give me a break. If this is what he does to his beloved, what does he do to his enemies??
Let him live a long, painful, and disfigured life. Let us punish his body; let God punish his soul.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Lets see how many of you bleeding hearts change your tune when YOU get you face burnt. To hell with that guy, dip him in acid.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Lets see how many of you bleeding hearts change your tune when YOU get YOUR face scarred and blinded. To hell with that guy, dip him in acid.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
The attacker never repented. So punish him harshly. This is the law of the King and if the man repents then let his actions reflect this. Repenting to me would involve willingly giving financial support for life for crippling another person. If he doesn’t truly repent, have out his eyes. May God help him in his darkness if he should decide to repent after his punishment.
If she has to bear this burden and still be righteous, then so should he. All will be settled in court of God.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
What is it with Islam and the insecurity of Islamic men? Their entire world seems to revolve around their insecurity when it comes to women and sex.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I agree with an eye for an eye – none of you know what that woman is going through. Unfortunately letting him spend a few years in jail is not justice. I hope this man is blinded with acid and made to suffer while at the same time serving as a warning to others contemplating this.
This has nothing to do with Islam (is it widespread in the arabian peninsula?) But is rather a result of traditional male stupidness found in parts of Asia (which is why it is also common in India among Hindus – remember, they used to demand a wife burn alive when her husband died).
The Taliban are the same – unable to control their sexual urges and raging jealous of another man even looking at their women. This is not a religious problem, it is a very, very serious social problem one that the world needs to stop being afraid to confront. We need psychologists to address this and for the world to accept the role of sexual frustration and male jealousy.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:31 am
I think she has right to reguest of eye for eye. So in the future nobody going to have the balls to do that.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:46 am
How on earth can you blame Islam for this? This awful behavior is clearly condemned– the attacker is being punished. You may not agree with the punishment, but the man certainly isn’t getting away with his crime, and Islam isn’t endorsing his crime in the slightest.
April 26th, 2009 at 2:10 am
I am Iranian woman and I can totally understand how Ameneh Bahrami feels. If the same had happened to me, I, too, would have wanted the other person to go through what I went through. Her life is forever destroyed. However I don't think the shariah law of eye for eye will help to solve this problem in the long run. The crime rate in Iran, which includes murders, thefts, and rapes have not been reduced as a result of Shariah Law. Women, in general, continue to remain the subject of abuse in many ways.____Believe it or not, I wonder what type of upbringing the guy had that made him think he had a right to painfully disfigure and blind a woman for not agreeing to marry him. What did his parents teach him??? Weren't there signs of abnormality thorughout his childhood and teen years that society should have paid attention to to prevent this from happening?? Perhaps at home, throughout his schooling years and so on?? Were his parents educated??? were his teachers educated??? what was his psychological state and who were the people in his life and how did they influence him??? I know many think that these are unimportant, but I do think that they are important.______
April 26th, 2009 at 2:12 am
continued: The problem with Sharaih law and the entire system which the Islamic Republic has perpetuated is that they don't really help to prevent anything from happening!!! There are many such incidents which the perpetrators either run away from or get acquitted, which the Iranian government doesn't tell you about. ____Once the crime is committed, only the punishment might be carried out. The schooling and parenting system in Iran is not so advanced as to help children with psychological abnormaties or to even teach them to respect women and each other. ____Therefore, though I would feel the same as Ameneh if the same had happened to me, I would have to say that I am not in support of eye-for-eye because it is not justice, just brutality inflicted another who probably never learned any better.____Therefore, I believe the entire system is at fault, not just one person and blinding this man or torturing him will not prevent such incidents from happening. With that said, I hope that Miss Bahrami gets the love and support she needs from her community to get through these hard times and find a way to live a meaningful life despite this horrible incident.
July 26th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Ah Ed. I always love an optimist- as I too am often one, always thinking that people can be "saved." But I really find that this punishment does fit the crime. This man still is fixated on this woman- and he has threatened to kill her. This is exactly what the people need- punishment for acts that they know are wrong.
Would it surprise you to know that I am a psychology major? The legal definition of "Insanity" is, when one does not know that they are doing any wrong at the time they commit the crime. Such a small percent of people claim or try to claim the "insanity defense," with a very small portion actually getting approved for such. This man was not insane. I will tell you, what I think though, with my arm chair view.
Women in the societies in which we speak, are treated as less than people. Men on the other hand, are treated like kings, like Gods, even as little children. The little boys grow up, seeing their father's dehumanize the mothers and daughters, and why should they ever do any different? Some do change, and- the truth is, we are not controlled by how we are brought up- but it does affect the way we initially act in the world. It is a GOOD THING to make people responsible for their actions. And hopefully, with time, and with punishment, the perpetrators with their punishments will send a message loud and clear- "WOMEN ARE PEOPLE TOO."
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Eye for an eye, that’s what being a human is all about. Look at World War 2.