Two Women Stoned: Feminists Mum

Not all feminists are leftists but those who are have made the calculation that any enemy of the US is their friend. Therefore they rarely criticize.

Katha Pollitt has no business calling herself a feminist. She is a charlatan (funny - just like Mohammed!).

I recently sent Robert Spencer a video of a stoning of a 15 year old girl in the Palestinian terror-tory.

It was sent to friend of mine from an attorney in Israel. The problem with this video is that it was a violent, and murderous attack by numerous males who kicked her,through rocks, and smashed a large concrete brick several times down onto her head while other males can be seen laughing and videoing or taking pictures with their cell phones as the attack went on.

This particular video was so disturbing that I chose to remove it from my PC after watching it twice. Their was an Arabic sentence at the end of it, but I still haven't aquired the exact source yet.

The unbelievable evil of it still angers me deeply when I reflect on it.

Waiting on those press releases from the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns....waiting

Since a recent New Yorker magazine had an article about what if the Muslims had not been stopped at the Battle of Poitiers and Karen Armstrong was allowed to offer her thoughts, I'm sure they'll be featuring an article soon about this evil....waiting...

Well, I'm a feminist AND a leftist and I actively speak out against atrocities against women in the Islamic world.

I'm doing the best I can, here, people, but my personal influence only reaches so far:P

You can read about the punishment of stoning a woman caught in adultery in the new testament of the Bible. This excessive punishment occurred in the towns where Jesus lived two thousand years ago. Jesus did not like this punishment and even intervened to prevent a guilty woman from being stoned to death (John 8: 1-11). Jesus valued the woman's life, even if consumed by sin, and understood that the cruel punishment of stoning her to death was disordered and inherently evil. The punishment did not serve justice in the eyes of God 2,000 years ago and it does not serve justice today in 2008.

Stoning a woman caught in adultery was never a Christian form of punishment. The Jews eventually stopped this practice. Stoning a woman caught in adultery gradually became a Muslim form of punishment and is still practiced today in countries of the Middle East where shariah dominates.

How come the man the adulterous woman had an affair with was not also stoned to death? Clearly, he was also a sinner and engaged in the same sin as his female mistress. It is unjust that the woman is being punished with the worst punishment under the sun while the adulterous man avoids being punished. This not a balanced form of justice. Jesus fully understood this fact. The rooot of this cruel punishment of stoning lies in misogyny- the hatred of women that is enshrined in the Qur'an and other Islamic texts. It must be outlawed.

The rooot of this cruel punishment of stoning lies in misogyny- the hatred of women that is enshrined in the Qur'an and other Islamic texts. It must be outlawed.

Posted by: Johnathan at February 7, 2008 10:11 AM

You are so right. For my part, I'm not going to hesitate anymore to say that I hate Islam, Mo, and Koran, and cite the many reasons why, should the occasion call for it. They can call me their usual names - hater, bigot, racist, etc - I couldn't care less! When you reach the point where you don't care about being called those awful things, because you know you are right, then, you have WON! The PC MoonBats and stupid Mo Apologists such as Karen Armstrong, have LOST!

Why is my name highlighted above, Mr. Spencer?

darcy,

It must just be a quirk. I'm using HTML tags here. (I finally figured out what they are.)

Yours truly,

John C

As heinous and unjustifiable an act that stoning is . . .I simply shrug.

Expressing moral outrage and perhaps gaining a reprieve for these unfortunate souls does nothing to stop this event from ever taking place again. And what if they are spared? Will Zohreh or Azar renounce Islam and sharia? Not likely. And so it will continue, until the next Zohreh or Azar or Sayed Parwiz Kambaksh make the mistake of being caught in mixed company or printing some non-sharia compliant article from the web.

So long as we sit back and permit the UN to undermine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, allowing the CAIRO Declaration of Human Rights/Arab Charter of Human Rights with it's natural emphasis on sharia mandates. . .

and while the "coalition of the willing" looks the other way while our blood and treasure is misallocated to creating sharia compliant states - we are guilty of aiding and abetting sharia justice.

Until we come to our collective senses and decide to BAN SHARIA - we will be fighting endless losing battles for those who believe Muhammad is their prophet, uswa hasana al insan al kamil -- and as such are willing to/forced to live/die with the consequences of their devotion.

I wrote to The Nation, NOW, the UN and Condoleezza Rice this morning about this.

Would these be the same feminists who are as vocal in their condemnation of stoning as they are in their condemnation of the filth that is gangster rap? Rap that glorifies the sexual abuse of young girls that is widely avialable for youths to listen to throughout the entire western world?

Hmm. Good luck with your appeal to feminist reason Mr Spencer but I wouldn't hold your breath.

If we can't stand up against female abuse in our own countries what right have we got to condemn abusers overseas?

Good day all,

Have the women been stoned or will be stoned? There's a conflict with your headline and article.

This from Amnesty International:

"A new lawyer representing the women told journalist Marjan Lagha'i that, 'the case has fundamental problems, since a person can not be tried twice for the same crime. Yet these two sisters have been tried twice in the same case, and two sentences have been issued for them... the circumstances that are required to prove adultery - confession by the accused on four different occasions that can be corroborated by the testimony of four eyewitnesses to the alleged crime - are entirely absent, and there is absolutely no legal document in this case that a judge can use to issue a stoning sentence... Given that I view this sentence to be against the principles of Sharia, as well as the criminal laws [of Iran], I have filed an official objection, and I have asked that the Head of Judiciary review the case once again.' "

It appears this is not an Islamic/Sharia issue but of a government run amok and terrorizing its own women.

I protest the sentencing of these women.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

Update on my emails:

The email I used for the UN (which I cut and paste directly from the UN website to my email, and which was supposed to be for a division that addresses human rights violations against women) is non-working.

Guess they don't want to hear about it.

"Jesus valued the woman's life, even if consumed by sin..."

John 8:3-4 only says that the woman brought up for stoning (by Pharisees and a lynch mob, hardly unimpeachable sources of justice anyway) had been caught in the act of adultery. That hardly constitutes "a life consumed by sin". Join the 21st century will you, Jonathan.

Most feminists are also multiculturalists. They are caught in a bind. Either they defend the universal rights of women (and men) to make their own choices or they accept the right of other cultures to have their own norms of behavior. They can't condemn Iran without making it seem that their own belief system is superior. That's a cardinal sin in a multicultural world.

Feminism stops at the water's edge.

13 Martyrs wrote:

"It appears this is not an Islamic/Sharia issue but of a government run amok and terrorizing its own women."

It's both.

The more that Islamic governments institute classical Shari'a, the more they terrorize their own populace with pathological and fanatical puritanism.

(That, in Muslim societies, the majority of people actually like to be so abused by such pathological and fanatical laws, out of their deranged and obsessive adulation of those laws as divine, does not contradict the characterization of this legal process as terrorism, insofar as most Muslims are profoundly masochistic -- the flip side of their sadism; just as mania is the flip side of depression.)

So leftists and feminists are now fine with thestoning of women in Islamic lands. Islamic nations may very well now include the United States.....

SO--

Would any US Muslims care to 'stone' Gloria Steinem now and her obnoxious ilk?????

I'll buy the rocks!!!

Cantor,

Thanks for the reply to my post. Having lived in a Muslim country for three years I never witnessed or seen a single person who liked being abused by pathological and fanatical laws. To the contrary, there is plenty who rail against the injustices of such laws. I've never seen or heard of anybody engaging in obsessive adulation of those laws. And I've never would characterize their conduct as profoundly masochistic or as a mania.

Rather I see people who are just like us: eat, sleep, work, make love and talk about the same things you and I talk about. Yes, they pray five times a day, but so what? Some people go to church every day or read the Bible at home or at work with every spare minute they can get. So what? At the end of the day the difference between Christians and Muslims don't amount to a whole lot, contrary to what you read on this site.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

"At the end of the day the difference between Christians and Muslims don't amount to a whole lot."

This is true of those who treat their religion as merely a tradition or participate to a "minimum requirment" degree.

For those who actually seek to emulate Jesus or Muhammed as portrayed within the relative texts, there is a great and grave difference.

Those are the ones we have the problem with and I'm not talking about Christians who are actually trying to more directly relate to a LOVING God.

In essence, your moral equivalence argument is meaningless to the topic at hand and what is truthfully presented on this site.

-XRDC

As much as I deplore the cruelty of this behavior, and have geniune pity for its victims, does this really work against US? If they continue to waste resources oppressing half of their population, doesn't this help us?

http://menznews.blogspot.com

memo to 13 martyrs:

The difference between Muslims and Christians lands DOES amount to a great deal 'at the end of the day', my friend! You may have noticed, for instance, 13 martyrs that very, very few persons escape their Christian democratic homelands to reach and live in the Islamic 'utopias' of the Middle East, Northern Africa, or Southwest Asia. It nearly always works the other way around with defectors from Islam struggling to find freedom and democracy (denied them by Islam) in the Christian, democratic lands. Now, why, do you suppose that is?

In the western democracies, which are Christian, we can choose our religious affiliations and determine our laws and how our laws are implemented. And remove corrupt leaders (try that in Saudi Arabia or Iran!).

With Islamic-ruled lands, you are given the choice between accepting Islam, dhimmitude, or death. Under Islam, shari'aat is the whole deal. No alternatives to Islamic law are permitted to those living under Islamic rule (ISLAM IS government; Christianity is NOT and again that is a broad gulf). Those who are in power in Islamic theocracies are virtually never successfully challenged or removed (except if their Islamic homeland has permitted democratic reforms by dint of pressing from the western Christian and democratic lands). Islam is inherently undemocratic and punitive--it is western Christian and democratic reforms that almost certainly have led to alleviation of the situation where you were. I can say this, because individual rights were never a feature of Islamic doctrine which is inherently anti-individual (Christianity is NOT nor is it incompatible with democracy)--which is a major and typical complaint coming from Muslims who have escaped Islam for the west (and now are facing execution as leaving Islam is a capital crime and that punishment is frequently enforced; leaving Christianity carried no penalty from Christians except possibly some social falling out).

13 martyrs did you notice that the Islamic nations have never produced any political documents comparable to the Magna Carta or US Constitution? Don't you think that this is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between Islamic and Christian lands?

By the way, you may also have noticed that Islamic lands are by and large very unproductive and as a result abjectly impoverished? YOU don't think THAT is a SIGNIFICANT difference?? (It is).

We could list hundreds more significant differences here betweem Muslims and CHristians because at the end of the day it matters. A lot. But there's no need to as we can all see this-- even if you can't.

If your post is sincere, then you are a very, very intellectually shallow individual with remarkably weak powers of observation and perception.

With practicing Christians you get western civilization. With practicing Muslims, you get the Middle east. End of story.

13 martyrs you can keep Islam.

13 Martyrs,

"Having lived in a Muslim country for three years I never witnessed or seen a single person who liked being abused by pathological and fanatical laws."

1) It's difficult to see what another person feels (what they "like"), particularly when the observer may not be looking for it and may even have multiculturalist reasons for not noticing certain important data

2) Your three years of experience is

a) anecdotal

b) too vague concerning the sampling population (how many Muslims did you see? in what circumstances? did you sample a sufficiently broad and representative quantity of the population to make the generalizations you make about Muslim people? do you speak the language(s) to know what they were really saying as opposed to the face they present? etc. Even if you specified the sampling population involved, one person's personal experience is not sufficient to outweigh the mountains of data from thousands of other person who have reported sufficient data about Muslim behaviors and expressions to lead one to the conclusion that they like abusive Shari'a.

c) You might well suffer from the multiculturalist filter you carry around in your head, such that it might impair your ability to notice pertinent data that would contravene your axioms. Your other comments (on this thread and on previous threads here at JW which I have noticed) certainly indicate this possibility.

13 Martyrs says:

"At the end of the day the difference between Christians and Muslims don't amount to a whole lot, contrary to what you read on this site."

Thanks for giving me a priceless comic moment, what a great sense of humour you have!

Mainly because of the "contrary to what you read on this site" line. Cracking comedy! Because:

How narrow do you think I - and I believe most of us regulars here on JW - am? Do you think we only come to this site to be spoon-fed by dear old Uncles Robert, Hugh and the other scholars who make this such a informative resource, but just one of many online, regarding the paedophile prophet and his legacy of evil and insanity?

Allow me to suggest a small correction, if I may be so bold, to your somewhat silly sentence:

"...in line with what you know to be factual about the persecution of women, the killing of kuffars, apostates and jews, the jihad in India, Pakistan - oh yes, I nearly forgot those rabble-rousing BUDDHISTS in Thailand - and of course, the abuse of children throughout the Islamic world, there are enormous differences bewteen Christianity and a paedophile worshipping death cult as correctly highlighted by this website."

There. I could've made it longer but what the heck, there's enough there for you to chew on I reckon.

Deary me what next, there isn't much difference between the US and Saudi Arabia?

Well it's pretty ironic, given the Archbishop of Canterbury's statements about the joy of Muslim law.

Can't wait until it happens here, hope he's first, he does wear a frock after all.
I've put wire netting over my rockery just in case.

Hillary's staff is made up of these feminists.

Ian

No irony here I'm afraid.

The Archbishop's latest outburst has nothing to do with Islam it is a continuing attack being waged upon British society by Marxists who want to establish an EU police state.

Disestablishment of the church is just one of their stated goals. There are others - brainwashing of children, tax-payer funding without declaration - all sorts of anti-democratic activity.

Google "Common Purpose"+Brian Gerrish and find out what is being done to my country.

Deary me what next, there isn't much difference between the US and Saudi Arabia?
by: Britannia's Lion

Believe it or not, that's pretty much the argument made by many dems regarding GWB and the GOP re Saudi Arabia. Listen to them and all you hear is that the GOP and George W. Bush want to establish a Christian theocracy that would have no real difference from the Saudi system. Next, they'll tell you Bush is no different from Ahmadinejad, that all he wants to do is impose his own religion on everyone.

For many, you're suspect unless you're an atheist or an agnostic.

After watching what has happened to women's liberties and rights in Afghanistan and Iraq, I should think the last thing Iranian women would want is American support. The Administration incorporated (wrote with their own hand)Sharia law into the Iraqi constitution, any complaints from here would and should rightfully be decried as hypocrisy.

Look most feminists, like me, are just ordinary women enjoying the equality our forebears struggled for. We're grateful for their efforts, but we see no need to be part of any group.

Cantor wrote in response to my last post:

" John 8:3-4 only says that the woman brought up for stoning (by Pharisees and a lynch mob, hardly unimpeachable sources of justice anyway) had been caught in the act of adultery. That hardly constitutes "a life consumed by sin". Join the 21st century will you, Jonathan. "

Cantor,

Thanks for the invitation to join YOUR 21st century but I would prefer to stay in MY OWN 21st century.

Are you saying that adultery is no longer to be considered a sin because the 21st century has arrived?

What a bunch of nonsense!

Are you an atheist who does not believe in the reality of sin?

Commandment # 7 in the Ten Commandments clearly states that you must not commit adultery.

http://www.topmarks.co.uk/judaism/commandments/tencomms.htm

It is sinful to enagage in adultery.

This is not a controversial topic.

It is well established in most religious traditions that adultery is considered to be a sin no matter what century it happens to be in the world.

Sorry to rain on your hedonistic parade but this is the way that world operates.

Jonathan,

"Are you saying that adultery is no longer to be considered a sin because the 21st century has arrived?"

I didn't say adultery should not be considered a sin. I objected to your extra layering of categorizing an adulterer (who might well have been a first-timer, we don't know from 8:3-4, and those Islamic-style Pharisees wouldn't have cared) as living a "life consumed by sin."

"Are you an atheist who does not believe in the reality of sin?"

I think sin is a useful symbolism by which the Judaeo-Christian addition to Graeco-Roman philosophy contributed fruitfully to philosophical anthropology.