Late last week, Google directed me to a newspaper in Australia (!) where I read about a man who stabbed his wife 250 times; needless to say, he killed her. The report went on to allege that this killer also ate his wife's liver and lungs while their four year-old daughter watched from the next room. The article also said that this fiend was sentenced to only 15 years to life. It also noted that although this man stabbed his wife 250 times, he hotly denies being a cannibal. That bad he's not. Even monstrous killers have pride.

What the hell is wrong there Down Under, I wondered. And then—I read the most amazing bit of information. This heinous murder had not taken place in Australia but in my own backyard, in Queens, New York, three years ago, in 2007. And, while the crime and 2010 sentencing were viewed as newsworthy in Australia and India, the sentencing was not covered at all in the (hardcopy) liberal mainstream media.

Well, it does sound more like a National Enquirer story, doesn't it?

Now, who would commit such a savage murder? Was the murderer a domestic version of Jeffrey Dahmer who raped, murdered, then ate children and young men? But Dahmer and his ilk are not often married to women and do not have children. Well, a serial killer might do this to a girl or woman whom he does not know, someone whom he believes is a prostitute. Again, these psychopaths do not prey upon their wives.

And then, of course, I knew, "racist" that I presumably am, that the murder had probably been committed by a Third World immigrant, let's say, someone from South Asia, for these are all the pseudonyms for…Muslims and for Muslim terrorists. Sure enough, the murderer's name is Mohammed Solaiman; his victim's name was Shahida Sultanna. The New York Post and the Daily News covered the sentencing. The New York Timesdid not.

Ironically, the Paper of Record did cover this murder, briefly, in 2007, when it happened—but in an article that also covered another Queens-based murder—as if to say that the borough of "Queens" was the true subject. Needless to say, no reporter dared note the murderer's ethnicity, culture, or religion. It's anybody's guess. Clearly, journalists might not view this information as relevant or they may already know that their editors will simply take it out as "racist" profiling.

In court, Solaiman's lawyer claimed that Solaiman, who was 49 years old at the time of the crime, was an "abused" husband whose 32-year-old wife had verbally and physically "abused" him for six years. While May-December marriages certainly exist in the West, they more closely characterize marriages in the developing and Muslim world.

Of course, the other Mo (Hassan), the husband who beheaded his wife in Buffalo, is also claiming that he was an "abused" husband too. Just like Major Nidal Hasan, Buffalo "Mo" is claiming that he's the victim and/or that he suffers from some diminished capacity or emotional disturbance brought about by "abuse."

This is a consistent strategy. A number of Muslim wife-killers and daughter-killers honestly feel that they are the true victims, that their wives abused them and their daughters "dishonored" them—and that, in turn, these adult men felt "attacked," and were forced to "defend" themselves.

In 1989, Palestina Isa's father, a St Louis, Missouri-based Abu Nidal terrorist, described how "attacked" he and his family felt by his too-Americanized daughter. Thus, after a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse had failed to tame his daughter, he and his wife stabbed the 16 year-old thirteen times.

As I've discovered in my most recent study about honor killings, while there are Hindus and Sikhs who perpetrate honor killings, this is primarily a Muslim-on-Muslim crime. And, these deaths are often very torturous. Worldwide, the torture rate that accompanies a female honor killing is 54%; North America has the lowest torture rate (35%); the Muslim world rate is 51%; Europe has the highest torture rate (68%).

Ellen Sheeley, the author of a study on honor killings in Jordan, wrote to me privately and congratulated me on the study. However, she said that every single honor killing she'd investigated in Jordan was a torture-killing. She writes:

"You have done a wonderful job of trying to count, classify, and analyze the higher-profile cases that have been reported in the English-language media, but I worry about generalizing to the larger population of cases based on a sample that we probably know isn't representative. For example, just in Jordan alone, each year about 20 of these crimes are reported in the English-language press. Anecdotally, I can't remember a single one that wasn't unspeakably torturous and violent for the victim. The predominant modus operandi is complete and utter overkill."

May I suggest that the psychology of jihad follows a similar pattern. Shame and humiliation about being part of a culture that has not crept too far out of the early middle ages translates into injured pride and into feeling attacked by any culture which has evolved, is currently modern, free and flourishing. Symbolic, overkill murders are one response. First of their own women and children; second of rival clans and tribes. Third, of infidels.

As a psychologist I would advise my country to take the threat of nuclear jihadism very seriously.