Malaysian women say caning for adultery was "good" for them

"Here's an easy one, Sidek: Adultery takes two. Where are the men in this story?"

Probably out committing more zina. In Islam, boys will be boys and girls will be beaten.

So what, precisely, is the point being made by this posting, Ms. Seibold?

Is this to oppose caning in general?

Or is it to only make an issue of it when it's decreed under Malaysia's sharia courts, while not mentioning the apparently more harsh forms of it meted it by Malaysia's secular courts, and even in non-Muslim Singapore for offenses apparently as minor as trafficking in fireworks?

I agree that the men should be questioned.

It's the women however who get pregnant not the men; they need to be more careful before being influenced. It is true that women cannot become pregnant without the men ...hence the need for questioning.

The pregnanat women (outside of wedlock) provide a really bad image ....hence the need for (light) caning.

Caning does not really hurt, it was administerd regularly in schools in the UK upto the late 1980s. Now you cannot touch the children.....and they have gone wild.

Everybody needs boundaries to have civilised living; sadly although the West says they are civilised; infact it is most unjust and undisciplined.

The Western children and teenagers are in effect crying out for discipline (e.g. caning) whereas the parents will not allow it....what is the world coming to?

Caning, the way the muslims do it is barbaric and cruel and unusual punishment. I'm really sure those women (girls) turned themselves into authorities for feeling guilty. You can only feel guilty for a perfectly normal physical act if you are brainwashed to believe that you are guilty before the fact. I my opinion, it should be the men who (probably) raped the women (girls)that should be punished - just don't let me be in charge of that punishment - what I have in mind for those "men" (animals), would be considered cruel and unusual by everyone (including those barbaric animals who cane women). My rant is over - remember that muslim law is the law of the jungle, not the law of civilized Men, or the law of G_D!

Of course these women are thrilled they were caned!

The alternative was burying up to their chest and throw stones at them until they were dead.

It is true that women cannot become pregnant without the men ...

And your evidence for this is exactly what?

nabi ZK (pbum)

The Quran actually does not mandate death for adultary, but rather that the offending parties should be beaten and ostracized from society. Death became the punishment only in later generations.

A man can not be guitly of adultary unless he encroaches upon another man's "property."

OT but pertinent:

The other day I was having a conversation with a friend about the Wilders trial, and she inquired rhetorically, "Why are the Dutch cutting their own throats?"

Indeed.

Yom...I agree that the men should be questioned.

Only questioned? Oh that's right, they can't get pregnant, so they are immune from punishment...Since canning does not hurt, I don't understand why the men are not canned also...
But it's clear, the women present a bad image...Those men who are out whoring around make for a good image...Uh huh...

This is the shariah variant of copping a plea-bargain.

Lapidation was the prescribed punishment for adulatery from the earliest days of Islam. A hadith attributed to Umar the second mohammedan caliph says "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (Bukhari 8:82:816)

Sometimes I cannot find to words to say and other times I find so many words to say that I dare not say them.
In this case, responding to Marisol's post, I choose the words of another to demonstrate,
yet again, the vast chasm between Jesus Christ and Islam:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery,
and having set her in the center of the court,
they said to [Jesus], "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery,
in the very act.
Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women;
what then do You say?"

They were saying this, testing Him,
so that they might have grounds for accusing Him.
Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them,
"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

When they heard it, they began to go out one by one,
beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone,
and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

(The Gospel of John, chapter 8, verses 3-11)

Truth! Mercy! Justice! Compassion!

My comment from the initial story still stands;

Maybe it is my knuckle-dragging, Neandrathal Catholicism speaking or maybe it is my conservative Italo-American family values or maybe that I have worked for close to 15 years for lawyers practicing "family law" (divorce, paternity, child custody) but I am actually TORN here about caning adulterers. As a conscientious objector to the Sexual Revolution - a lonely counter-Revolutionary -- I have seen what winking at adultery, embracing shack-ups and hook-ups has done to my beloved America. So yes, I am actually torn.

For 40 of my 54 years I have heard "If it feels good, do it." and how's that working out for us, America?

In a way don't we publicly flog celebs such as Tiger when their illicit sex romps are exposed? I am not suggesting the extreme of stoning but in some way the body politic must mimic the body; shame, shunning and/or stigma are as NECESSARY for the body politic as white blood cells and anti-bodies for our bodies.

No wonder they want to impose Sharia Law in Malaysia.
"....had a three year old daughter out of wedlock".
Well, here in the West, when children are born, customarily they are about 1 second old.
Should I now offer myself up for the cane as I have had an inappropriate thought ?
You just get the feeling that it was a quiet news day for the regions Jihadists and the reporter, having just caned one of his own wives, contrived this story to cleanse himself and feel much better.

Unfortunately I don't have a Propaganda-Photo-op of millions of Male Muslims looking Smug !

For that you will have to give me six of the best.

Now you cannot touch the children.....and they have gone wild.

*** 8:59 ***

And the Moslem children in Britain will be caning the teachers before long. Kids will be kids and Moslems will be Moslems. It's only a matter of time.

"The person administering the punishment is not allowed to raise their arm above shoulder level." -- headline

Well, then! ...at least they have soooome principles / sarc

Here's another example of more rotten fruit being produced by those devoted to evil islam.

I love fruit that's produced from the tree of life :)

"Even though the caning did not injure them, the three women said it caused pain within their souls," Hishammuddin said."

Cannot souls be injured?

Islam: Un-creating Woman for 1400 years

Sort of makes you yearn for the simple "spanking web sites" we have back here in America.

Ladies, be glad you are here in the good old USA, and there are lots of gentle pervs who would never do any physical violence to a woman.

Article title: Malaysian women say caning for adultery was "good" for them

Marisol's editorial remark: Of course, as they're already under the thumb of Sharia enforcers, they can't be sure of what might happen if they said anything else.

There is also another hypothesis, one unencumbered by a sentimentalist romanticization of Muslim women, that takes their words here at face value and does not try to soften them with a gauzy veil -- an unsentimental hypothesis that takes the words of these Malaysian Muslim women as indicative of the unique fanaticism among all Muslims, regardless of gender (that Muslim is a female, aww, my heart softens and looks for some sign of life there, some sign of victimhood we must try to aid!), regardless of age (that Muslim is so young, just a child, he or she can't possibly be dangerous!), regardless of behavior (that Muslim is so nice and polite, he must be harmless!), regardless of garb (that Muslim's wearing blue jeans and listening to an ipod, therefore he must be moderate!); etc.

After I got my "whupings"..I was smart enough not to act as if it hadn't got my mind right. Yes sir..wiping it off right here boss.

Giving ex-PM Mahathir Mohamad a strong whipping would be both more pleasurable and consistent with Shari'a Law...

The number of Shari'a-sanctioned canings in Malaysia actually pales in comparison to the number of S & M
fetishistic spanking taking place among Malay Rajahs
and their girlfriends (and boyfriends). There is so
much hanky-pankies in Malaysia, the religious police
could never catch up to them...

... an unsentimental hypothesis that takes the words of these Malaysian Muslim women as indicative of the unique fanaticism among all Muslims, regardless of gender...

Gender? It's called sex. When the feminists brought in the grammarical term gender to displace the organic term sex for the obvious legalistic benefits, well that was smart and that was cute and that was obeisantly accepted by media, government, the no account professors, and industry.

*** 33:59 ***

It's called sex, a term that comprises not only the act but the shape of the plumbing down under. Don't beholden yourself to the liguistic manipulations of the dykes. As with the globo-socialists, their deceptions also dovetail beautifully with those of the Moslem.

"Of course, as they're already under the thumb of Sharia enforcers, they can't be sure of what might happen if they said anything else."--Marisol.

An important point. We cannot take the words of those living under sharia at face value. Their words must always be interpreted in light of the sword dangling overhead (figuratively and literally). More generally, as the "cartoon crisis" showed, everyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, is under some degree of coercion and fear in expressing anything about Islam. All public statements about Islam today must be seen in this light. Even putting aside factors such as "political correctness," ignorance, and so forth, there will always be a bias toward favorable comments about Islam and a bias against critical comments about it, due to the threat of violence and other forms of retaliation coming from some Muslims. This bias will remain in place as long as the significant threats remain--or until people on a much larger scale start criticizing Islam.

In light of this, we should be appreciative of those willing to stick their necks out and criticize Islam publicly in the interests of educating the public.

Gravenimage wrote:

Darcy, I am well aware of Jim Foster's ongoing apologia for even the most hideous aspects of Islam, as well as his insults to respected posters here.

Gravenimage, perhaps you could clarify what exactly my "ongoing apologio for even the most hideous aspects of Islam" consists of. Since I pretty much detest most of what I've learned about Islam, I'm awaiting your explanation with baited breath.

I stated that the Quran text itself does not mandate rajam, but that later texts do. I fail to see how that is "an apologio for even the most hideous aspects of Islam."

Also, as far as your remarks that you are "familiar" with my alleged "insults to respected posters here," perhaps you think that answering an accusation that I made up a story of facing anti-semitic discrimination in Texas was "lie" or that I am a "leftist" makes me guilty somehow of "insulting" these so-called "respected posters here."
From my perpsective, forgive me, answering a libel with the facts does not a lie make. Telling someone that I did not make a story up and that I am not a leftist does not make me guilty of an insult.

Standing up to proselytism and religious bullying does not make me guilty of an insult either.

Stating facts (the Quran does not mandate stoning, but that later sources such as the hadith DO mandate it) does not allow you to state that I am condoning "the most hideous aspects of Islam."

Why don't you just ask me what I intended, instead of projecting into it and insulting me? Calling people trolls, or fools, accusing me of being an apologist for Islam, or mocking names, or calling someone a leftist, etc. is pretty childish behavior.

I think it idiotic that some of you spend so much time on petty and insulting language and behavior, implying that people intend things that they do not indeed intend, in fact projecting base intentions into others' words, instead of discussing issues says more about you than it does about me.

I thought the point and intention here was to discuss issues related to Islamism. Rather hard to do that with insults I should think.

Do you think it possible that we could all spend more time discussing (as mature and ethical adults) issues that concern the theme and topic of this media rather than engaging in petty and inflamatory language against one another? I'd like that. Thanks.

Judicial canings are common in Singapore, where they were introduced during British colonial rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

Judicial canings are common in Singapore, where they were introduced during British colonial rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

An interesting link to a site which discusses women under Islamic laws:

http://wluml.org/node/5989

You can go to this Malaysian paper to get a view of the controversy these issues are causing within Malaysia's society, as well as some links relating to it:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/30/nation/20090930175135&sec=nation

Champ, I could easily insult you as you insulted me in the crudest of terms, but I will merely point out the following to you and leave it at that:

Several people on this medium want to attack those with whom they don't agree, or rant against those who might not tow what (to them) is some self-defined and politically correct mafiosi-style party line regarding the Islamist threat.

If one does not hate all Muslims, or if one states that Muslims are individuals and should not be painted with a universal brush of contempt, then terms like Muslim, liar, leftist, imbecile, liberal, retard,troll, enemy of God, anti-Christian, atheist, relativist, etc. are hurled against the non-conformist by these individuals.

The individuals I just mentioned resemble more the Islamists they claim to hate than the intelligent and democracy-minded people and themes this site sponsors.

What attracted me to this site years ago, and the reason I have checked it almost daily for at least six years, is the same reason I have enjoyed all of Robert's books: the courage, scholarship, and foresight that have gone into all of them, as well as into this site.

What attracts me also to this site is the people I have seen on it who have intellectual character. Those are the people with whom I hope to continue to interact. I refer to an exchange of ideas, not an endless and mindless repetition of bigoted slogans, generalizations, and rants. The others, the ones I mentioned in the first two paragraphs, received my scorn for their ignorance, hatred, and bigotry, and will from now on be merely ignored.

You can either choose to let your resentments go, or to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks as you are now. The choice is yours.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
also available in French intro+Chapter 1 so far
‘Le Guide Politiquement Incorrect de l'Islam’ disponible en Français intro+chapitre 1
don' t hesitate to share this with your french speaking friends using social networks buttons available on the website or email share options.
http://www.avraidire.eu/category/islam/robert-spencer-islam/le-guide-politiquement-incorrect-de-lislam-robert-spencer-islam-islam/

It's rather subtle, but the cumulative effect of Jim Foster's posts on this thread, for example, serve to tend to undermine the anti-Islam critique. Whether or not Jim Foster has had that conscious intent is another matter.

Consider:

In this thread about "moderate" Malaysia subjecting human beings to the humiliation and pain of corporal punishment for something that is not even a crime in the modern West because we are growing up and learning to stop sticking our collective nose in terms of public laws in the private business of individuals, here is Jim Foster's first comment:

1) The Quran actually does not mandate death for adultary, but rather that the offending parties should be beaten and ostracized from society. Death became the punishment only in later generations.

This comment has the effect of softening the Koran, and by extension of implying a "good Islam" -- i.e., a milder Islam that would be the "true Islam" grounded in that central holy text. The comment ignores the fact that Islam for the vast majority of Muslims is not "Koran-only": Islam for 85% of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims necessitates the Sunnah which is constituted of the Hadiths and the Sira and all the exegetical and juridical paraphernalia these in turn require. Indeed, as Chibli Mallat, Muslim professor of Western and Islamic law, has written:

“...none [of the 4 major schools of Islamic law] would disagree with the statement attributed to the Syrian jurist Awza’i (died 774 a.d.) that the Book [the Koran] is in greater need of the sunnah than sunnah is of the Book.”
(“Islamic to Middle Eastern Law: A Restatement of the Field (Part I)”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), p. 724).

And the other 14% (not counting the less than 1% who are Ahmadiyya and Bahai) of the world's Muslims, Shi'ites, similiarly have their own traditions equivalent to a Sunnah which necessarily supplement the Koran. The percentage of "Koran-only" Muslims probably amounts to a point-zero percentile; a tiny fraction. They are irrelevant to the problem of Islam, and in fact, insinuating what is tantamount to their view-point, as Jim Foster has done with his comment (whether intentionally or unintentionally), perpetuates the irrelevancy of a Koran-only perspective which has nothing to do with the actual Islam of reality, which is indissolubly much more than merely the Koran. To state that "there is no death penalty for adultery in the Koran" is to erect a fiction -- a more moderate-sounding fiction, which to unsuspecting non-Muslim readers who haven't yet learned enough will have the effect of planting the seed of, or reinforcing, their tendency to continue to entertain the notion of a viably moderate or milder Islam.

Furthermore, Jim Foster's claim that "Death became the punishment only in later generations" is patently false in terms of the Islamic narrative (whether or not it is actually historically true is a separate matter which the vast majority of Muslims do not permit their brains to conceive), as graven image demonstrated with the Bukhari hadith that pushes the death penalty for adultery back to Muhammad himself. So this statement by Foster also serves a function of softening the harshness of some putative "original Islam" -- thereby paving the way for readers to think, "Hm, I guess these 'extremist' Muslims today could be 'twisting' their Islam which, in its essential, original form, is essentially much milder and something we could accommodate..."

And this initial asseveration of Jim Foster he later contradicted when he responded to graven image after she supplied that hadith, when he wrote:

By saying that the Quranic text itself does not mandate rajam for adultary or zina, I am not saying that rajam does not exist in Islam or that Muhammed did not practice or mandate it.

But in fact, Jim Foster did say precisely that rajam did not exist at the time of Muhammad, when he wrote:

"Death became the punishment only in later generations"

2) Next, we have Jim Foster again making statements that have the effect of softening the Koran:

Of course it [the death penalty for adultery] is in the hadith and of course Muhammed mandated it. These two facts go directly against what the Quran itself teaches...

In fact, the rajam enshrined in the Sunnah does not "go directly against what the Koran teaches. The Koran does not forbid the rajam; it just fails to mention it. That's why Islamic jurists for 1400 years have been able to mandate rajam: this would have been much more difficult (if not impossible) had the Koran actually forbade it. (The abrogated "peaceful & tolerant" verses of the Koran tend to be verses that allow for the wiggle room and loopholes of substituting the "better" sword verses: none of those abrogated verses "go directly against" the sword verses. Any weaselly lawyer, for example, with sufficient cleverness of sophistical argument could easily accommodate and harmonize the two sets of verses.)

3) Jim Foster goes on:

...more proof that Islam, and "The Book" it claims to be based upon are far from being clear guides on this matter.

This statement has the effect of clouding and complicating Islam, reinforcing that other tactic of the Islam apologist -- namely, by promoting the notion that "Islam is not monolithic", which in turn serves to prevent us Islamophobes from going down a road leading from our criticisms & condemnation of Islam to policies that might have a collective effect on Islam and on the Muslims who enable Islam. If Islam is so "diverse" it can't be pinned down, then it also can't be effectively critiqued or condemned, since there is no unitary Islam there to critique or condemn -- and millions of "diverse" Muslims will thereby tend to escape our condemnation.

Very subtle tactic -- and effective when it insinuates itself -- through innocent-sounding statements like Jim Foster's -- into the minds of people who still have residues of the PC MC virus in their system.

4) Foster then goes on to imply that Jews still have stoning, but simply don't practice it:

Jewish law actually made it almost impossible to stone anyone for a capital offense. The act of adultary had to be witnessed by two witnesses of high moral standing; the culprits had to be warned by the witnesses that what they were doing was forbidden. The result was that rabbinic strictures made it virtually impossible to execute anyone.
Rabbi Akiva stated that a court that executes one person in seventy years is to be called a bloody court, and had he served on the Sanhedrin, no one would have every been executed.

This is another very subtle way of telegraphing the typical Leftist/Atheist Equivalency talking point that Jews and Christians harbor attitudes and teachings just as bad as Muslims and could "activate" them at any time, and it's only modern secularism keeping Jews and Christians in check and controlling them. So don't condemn Muslims, because we're just as bad, blah blah blah. In fact, Jews stopped stoning some 2,000 years ago, and have not stoned since then. Muslims have been stoning since then, and continue today. Even Tariq Ramadan, a smoothly educated European Muslim who speaks several languages, cannot bring himself to condemn the actual stoning that goes on in Muslim societies today. There is no equivalence.

The question of whether Jim Foster is consciously trying to cleverly insinuate these Apologetic tactics, or whether their effective presence in his comments simply reflects the PC MC disease in his mind, cannot be definitively answered, at least not yet.

Then we have Foster's subsequent comment that implied the Ego Quoque -- if not the Ego Peior (i.e., "We are worse than they are") -- of Western colonialism, by posting some dubious source that alleges that caning was "introduced by" the British (and the inattentive reader may fail to note that he limits this to "Singapore" -- a city-state, not even a country). When another reader challenged him on this, he claimed he did not intend what his comment strongly connoted.

Jim Foster says
"Of course it [the death penalty for adultery] is in the hadith and of course Muhammed mandated it. These two facts go directly against what the Quran itself teaches..."

Hesperado says
In fact, the rajam enshrined in the Sunnah does not "go directly against what the Koran teaches. The Koran does not forbid the rajam; it just fails to mention it

Perfect. There is zero contradiction about stoning in Islam.

Jim,

your statement that Quran doesnot mention stoning and Hadiths do mention is technically correct. People object to the way you put it. "Earlier texts donot mandate, while later mandate stoning". It gives an incorrect impression that somehow earlier pure, good Islam was modified into bad Islam.

Although hadiths have been recorded in written form after the Quran, they floated around in verbal form among muslims earlier. The events of Mohammed giving stoning orders and 'revealing' Quran were contemporaneous. Now what was written down at what time is irrelevant, no?

So there is no argument for "stoning to death became a part of Islam in later generations".

So there is no argument for "stoning to death became a part of Islam in later generations".

It was recorded in 'written form' by later generations. That's the best we can conclude, if something is not mentioned in the Quran, and mentioned in authentic hadiths.

I was so impressed with what Hesperado told us about Jim Foster and his debate with him. Great good logic in my opinion. Glad to have him on our side.

What struck me most was this episode:

"3) Jim Foster goes on:

...more proof that Islam, and "The Book" it claims to be based upon are far from being clear guides on this matter.

This statement has the effect of clouding and complicating Islam, reinforcing that other tactic of the Islam apologist -- namely, by promoting the notion that "Islam is not monolithic", which in turn serves to prevent us Islamophobes from going down a road leading from our criticisms & condemnation of Islam to policies that might have a collective effect on Islam and on the Muslims who enable Islam. If Islam is so "diverse" it can't be pinned down, then it also can't be effectively critiqued or condemned, since there is no unitary Islam there to critique or condemn -- and millions of "diverse" Muslims will thereby tend to escape our condemnation.

Very subtle tactic -- and effective when it insinuates itself -- through innocent-sounding statements like Jim Foster's -- into the minds of people who still have residues of the PC MC virus in their system."

My reaction:
I cannot possibly say it as well as Hesperado but this tactic I have heard and read so many times. It is also believed by almost all the people I know in my family, workplace and by most political parties in Holland.

What I can see is that their IS a sort of Ummah, however bad or well organised, to which supreme loyalty is given by many or most Muslims. And it is only logical that humans want to promote their own "tribe" as much as possible. Only with what means??? And all Muslims revere Mohammed, Quran, Hadith/ Sunna. And all say the Shahada and endorse the 5 pillars of Islam. Beyond that: confusion, vaqueness, countless interpretations and implementations, and contradictions. Not to be "pinned down", therefore not to be defended against effectively.

As I see it; on the one hand Muslims loyalty/ support to each other trumps all other loyalty/ support but at the same time they withdraw accountability/ responsibility about Islam when self-confessed Muslims perpetrate violence, oppression or deceit. Often saying themselves that it was in the name of Islam. On account of them having misunderstood Islam. And many Democratic people let Muslims get away with these disclaimers, to my disgust and frustration!

I think we, who are in favor of Democracy, should use this very excuse against them. Don't know exactly yet how. But something like:

Hey, how can you be offended when Islam is insulted and how can you reasonably defend Islam if you Muslims lack the following;
I. Loads of knowledge about both Democracy and Islam among your own followers and sympathizers. In fact, in many cases it is shown that ex-Muslims and Muslim-critics are far more knowledgeable than them.
II. Clarity of these first-millennial texts Muslims refuse to change for one iota, only interpreting them in countless ways.
III. Consensus about what Quran and Hadith/ Sunna prescribe and do not prescribe. Quite frankly it is a mess what you Muslims tell the world about many rules or denial thereof, how can you be taken serious in your defense of Islam?
IV. Authority-figures who are seen to be followed by a majority of all Muslims, who can give strength to your defense of Islam, which now is weak, due to so much division among Muslims.

Only when you repair those deficiencies we should take you serious in your defense of Islam, we should say to both Muslims and sympathizers. In the meantime the judgments of the Islam-critics and the ever-growing group of Democratic ex-Muslims should be taken with much more respect and attention in the face of this lack of Knowledge, Clarity, Consensus and respected and followed authority-figures in the Ummah & Co.

Very true, Hesperado!

I like to give them a twist back;

They so often say; don't blame Islam for what individuals do!
The connection of Islam with violent, oppressive, deceitful behavior cannot be proven.

But that means that we can say: Don't PRAISE Islam for what individuals do! The connection of Islam with good deeds and characters etc can also not be proven!

And if Islam is not to be blamed or praised then it becomes irrelevant!

Hesperado wrote:

"That's not my point, as I clearly articulated had you read it carefully. My point was that your locution telegraphed that Jewish culture harbors approximately the same extremism as Islam does, "

Hesperado, you are clearly nitpicking and projecting into my words, declaring you know what my thoughts and intentions were, and libeling them.

I await your apology for accusing me of being a liar, and for calling me a leftist and an atheist with an Isamist-enabling agenda.

I feel your accusation that I invented my experiences in Dallas, and your accusation that I am a "leftist" and an "atheist" was what helped instigate the flare up we all witnessed on one of these threads.

If you feel you have no need to offer an apology, then you have nothing to say to me nor I to you.

Gravenimage, thanks.

Hesperado called me a liar, an atheist, and a leftist. It is to these insults that I was responding.

You're correct in stating that my wording regarding stoning in the Quran, where it is not specifically mandated for adultary, and the hadith, where Muhammed himself practiced it, as being of a later generation was misleading. It was not intentionally misleading. The sahih ahadith clearly state Muhammed used stoning as a punishment, even when those hadith collections were not put together until generations later. These collections were not codified by the scholars until generations after Muhammed. I did not mean to state that the practice was not contemporaneous with the Quran's inception.
It clearly was.

Certain posters keep mentioning my comment that the Quran is not clear on certain issues, and making false accusation and impugning something dishonest and disingenious on my part. The Quran, despite its claim of being a "clear guide," does indeed give the impression of being rather murky on certain issues, stoning for adultary being just one issue in point. When the Quranic text states one thing, which is then contradicted by Muhammed's actual practice in the sunnah and hadith, the Quran is in fact very murky and self-contradictory on the issue at hand. I don't understand how anyone could extrapolate from this observation the claim that I am somehow defending Islam or attacking Judaism or Christianity.

Likewise, it was absurd to claim that I hold Christianity of Judaism equally at fault for potential terrorism by pointing out that halachah effectively did away with capital punishment centuries ago. Mishnah Sanhedrin basically says that. How do I know? I've studied the Mishnah. Though never actually outlawing stoning and other punishments for capital crimes, Jewish law did in fact effectively outlaw it. My quotes from Akiva, located in the Bablyonian Talmud, Masechta Sanhedrin, show that capital punishment was extremely rare. For anyone to state otherwise about me is to ignore the clear meaning of what I typed.

George, by posting this trashy ad hominem attack, you again seem to be pretty intent upon dragging up trash that virtually everyone else wants to forget.

Perhaps I've never responded to your original rant because its childishness, rudness, and offensiveness made it unworthy of a response to begin with.

"OK, I've had my say & now devoting no further attention to this guy. I enjoy this place immensely & want to get back to the REAL issues at hand..."

If that is your desire, I suggest you stop couching your statements in insults, whining like a spoiled little school girl, and just move on with it.

In the future, you might also want to follow a thread from its beginning, instead of jumping in, assuming things, and being left with your feet hanging out your mouth.

And now we have Muslim apologists bringing up caning in neighbouring Singaport. In Singapore, you get caned for committing serious offences, like theft, vandalism, muggings and violence, and the punishment is usually three to six strokes carried out by martial arts experts using rattan canes. You won't get caned for adultery there, unlike in Muslim countries where trivial things will get you 100 lashes or more.

Jim Foster,

I agree with you. I was going to add a comment about your statement about adultery, but then I saw others jumped on it. Your clarification/correction re the adultery penalty seems reasonable to me. It seems to me that, once again, some posters are reading far too much into your statements, projecting all kinds of things onto you and your words. It seems that a kind of group-think paranoia sets in here among some commenters from time to time, though I am glad to see that some posters have not succumbed to it.

...that is, I find reasonable Jim's correction/clarification re his statements about adultery in his post at Feb 20, 2010, 9:28 pm. I point this out, lest there be any misunderstanding from those who might misunderstand--at length.

From a previous thread of only a couple of weeks ago -- http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/taliban-rape-tapes-a-muslim-abu-ghraib.html -- concerning the story of some Taliban Muslims who raped little girls and videotaped the sessions, Jim Foster again posted comments that reflect the deep end of PC MC, if not the shark-infested deeper waters of Leftism:

Example:

The fact is that, while this behavior is not allowed by Islam any more than it is allowed by Judaism, Chrsitianity, or Buddhism, it does show the level to which religion can be used as a cover for the worst of hypocrites and sociopaths in a sick society dominated by superstition, ignorance, and corruption.

Once again, what Foster's comment implies here is that Islam essentially is okay, but has been twisted by extraneous factors ("a sick society dominated by superstition, ignorance, and corruption" -- i.e., the "culture" explanation: superstition, ignorance and corruption which, apparently, have nothing to do with the essence of Islam itself. This is the standard boilerplate template of PC MC concerning the problem of Islam -- which when you boil it down results in no problem of Islam per se, only a problem of extraneous factors -- you know, poverty, "culture", Western "meddling" in the Third World; the usual litany.

When graven image then corrected Foster, citing fellow posters --

I'm sorry Jim, this simply isn't the case. See, especially, Tanstaafl's post above. A great deal of sexual violence is sanctioned in Islam.

Dumbledore's Army wrote:

Supposing the girls 'starring' in these rape films had been...not Muslim girls, but Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists.

Would any Muslim have expressed outrage?

Dumbledore's Army makes a very important point here. The only reason this horror constitutes "a scandal that would rock the Muslim world like nothing before" is that the victims themselves were Muslim. If the victims were Infidels, I doubt there would be much outrage on the part of Muslims.

-- Foster responded thusly:

Oh. My bad. An anonymous poster makes a statement so it MUST be true.

Sorry, but MEMRI has a clip of a Muslim cleric in Egypt condemning (in the strongest possible terms) the recent violence against the Copts. Go to MEMRI and see it for yourself.

Hm, where have we seen this before -- a poster citing one video example of an ostensibly good Muslim to try to prove that most Muslims are good people?

Then Foster followed with this little priceless gem:

Islamic thought and law do not condone rape.

And then ends that particular comment with the standard garden-variety liberal indignation at generalization:

I will not stoop to the level of the Islamists by painting all Muslims with the same brush.

In that thread, others also joined in to try to school Foster. One poster (Demsci) had this acutely apposite response:

A. Do not stoop to painting all Muslims with an innocent brush either, saying in effect: If not all of them are guilty, then all of them must be innocent! Regardless of how bad many of them behave and how often they do it, in comparison to other humans.

That would be ignoring many oppressive, violent acts and threats and risks of them in the future.

B. Do not stoop to exonerating without further thinking Muslims of their allegiance to bad behaving co-religionists and to arguably Islam-supremacist, violence-inciting texts! Study holy texts and behavior of Muslims. Hold them accountable for this allegiance which often trumps and goes against allegiance to democratic rules and countries.

C. Do not stoop to mindlessly painting all religions, ways of life, with the same brush. We think most of them are better than Islam! Study and compare and weigh carefully and distinquish well between what followers of religions do and do not do and how much they do it.

To this intelligent articulation, Foster had only this rude dismissal:

Demaci, can you say A-S-S-U-M-E?

You do indeed make a lot of assumptions about me based on my simple observation.

You also seem to have quite the thing for paints and brushes.

Another poster (Spirit Of 1683) didn't sugarcoat his conclusion:

Jim Foster is just another stupid Leftist apologist for evil - the sort we've seen too often on here. He doesn't want to see Islam as evil - only the people who criticise that religion are evil in his tiny mind.

Then, in response to Christian Soldier, Foster clearly implied that he blames Christians not only for the Inquisition's bad treatment of Spanish Jews, but also for the Holocaust:

...my mother's family fled the inquisition in Spain only to settle to Central Europe and have ninety-nine percent of their descendents murdered by people who were members of various Christian denominations a little over four centuries later. Who is evil in this world, and who is not evil in this world? The question is oft times a confusing one.

-- and, by that rhetorical question at the end, muddying the waters of our ability to single out Islam, and the Muslims who enable Islam, as evil.

Incidentally, Foster goes on to note that "I have taken the time to purchase (at great cost) several classic tafsir on the Quran; and I own several hadith collections, all of which I am actually reading and studying" -- and yet just a few inches above, he wrote the preposterous (not to mention unsubstantiated) claim that

Islamic thought and law do not condone rape.

!!!!!

A lot of good his "reading and studying" is doing him. Foster also more recently claimed that he had been reading Jihad Watch for six years now, so that seals the deal on that one: he has no excuse for that preposterous (not to mention unsubstantiated) claim.

Then the poster AJ weighed in with a most pertinent response to that preposterous (not to mention unsubstantiated) claim of Fosters's:

Agreed. You cannot paint all muslims with the same brush. But Islam itself is evil. For starters, sex with women captured in war is legal. Would you consider this as rape?

PS: Read the story of khyber war and safiyaa.

[AJ might also have mentioned Koran 4:24 in this regard]

Roberts book:

"Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't",

will erase all doubt as to whether or not Christianity is just as evil Islam.

For those unable to tell the difference, then this book is a must read!

Jim,

I too have some objections to Hesperado's manner, but he raises at least one valid point in his latest post which ought to be addressed (whether here or on the original thread), regarding your statement that

"Islamic thought and law do not condone rape."

In the original thread, Gravenimage and others challenged it, but you did not provide an adequate defense of your statement, in my view. This type of argument requires not merely quoting an imam here or there--since one can also quote other imams putting the blame on the rape victims for not wearing "proper" Islamic attire (e.g., see Australia's notorious "uncovered meat" sheikh). This type of claim requires citing/quoting the core texts to show that "Allah" and Muhammad forbade rape per se (i.e., of anyone under any circumstances). However, one finds in these texts that Allah and Muhammad did not forbid rape per se. In the Hadith, Muhammad gives the death penalty to those who rape free Muslim women. But with regards to a Muslim man forcing his non-Muslim "right hand possession(s)" (i.e., slaves and captives) to have sex with him, there is no penalty. Indeed, the Quran gives Muslim men permission to have sex with their "right hand possessions" (4:3, 4:24, 23:5-6, 70:29-30; also see commentaries such as Ibn Kathir's), and Muhammad (who is considered an excellent example, 33:21) is also given this permission (33:50-52). The "right hand possessions" taken captive in jihad were considered war booty. There are "sahih" ahadith describing Muslims in the act of having sex with (i.e., raping) non-Muslim women captives, with Muhammad condoning it. Moreover, one can reasonably surmise, from the sahih ahadith and the Sira regarding the attack on the Khaybar Jews and the aftermath, that Muhammad raped Safiya, Kinana's wife. (And Muhammad also had slave girls).

Above, you wrote

"I recently came upon the ahadith relating to the tragedy of Kinana of Khaybar and it is good to see that someone is calling upon people to remember the atrocity that was perpetrated against that peaceful community by Muhammed."

Let's not forget one of the most important elements of that story: Muhammad's rape of Safiya.

Hey Jim!

You're OK

Hey Champ, Hesp et al,

You're all OK too.

Keep on keeping on.

From the exchange between Kinana of Khaybar and Jim Foster, one wonders whether Jim Foster would ever have come clean had not Kinana of Khaybar taken the time and trouble to confront and challenge him (and note that Kinana of Khaybar had to do this twice, as Jim Foster sloughed off his first attempt with the lame excuse that he was tired of getting into this whole thing). Kinana of Khaybar persisted, patiently and politely, yet firmly, and Foster had little choice but to respond, unless he wanted to be seen as evading a requezt which was utterly mature and intelligent and polite without any foothold for an accusation of rudeness on the challenger's part.

One also wonders how many other statements and claims Jim Foster makes he would concede are "wrong" after being similarly cornered in public where he can't find refuge in claiming that his challengers are being rude, thus forever evading their challenges.

Jim Foster's warm support of the worst form of Ego Peior (i.e., "We are worse than they are") I have seen on Jihad Watch (in the comment of a commenter "Stella Barbut" in the thread a few articles above us on anti-Semitic Muslims in Malmo Sweden) is another dubious distinction.

...I mean a "reeeaaaaaaalllllllyyyyyyy" slow learner ...

Errrr....as much as I love an esoteric debate about
the nuances of this or that Sura, this particular topic is about Malaysia. The Ulama in Malaysia have co-opted the
British colonial tradition of caning and incorporated it into 'Shari'a Law' for Malay-Muslims. It is widely used
in Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu in the North which
have been under opposition Islamic control (Parti se-Islam
Malaysia or PAS) for sometime. The ruling party (UMNO) not wanting to be outdone in its Islamic credentials has, of course, cultivated creeping Islamicization of Malaysian institutions in order to maintain control of the federal government. Every so often women (and sometimes men) get caned in Malaysia, particularly if they happen to be
poor Malays (Rajahs and fatcats never get caned or canned, at least not in Malaysia). And when not caning some poor retched Malay, opposition politicians can always be jailed and then brought up for bogus buggery charges of sodomy just to prevent them from becoming Prime Minister (i.e., Anwar Ibrahim).

Jim,

Initially in this thread, you suggested that stoning for adultery was not carried out until "later," i.e., some time after the Quran. The Gravenimage went to some trouble to point out that this was not correct, and that actually stoning would have been practiced during Muhammad's lifetime, i.e., not "after" or "later" than the Quranic revelation. You had agreed with this: "I did not mean to state that the practice [of stoning] was not contemporaneous with the Quran's inception. It clearly was."

Yet in your latest post above you write "Just as I discovered from reading the Quran, stoning isn't commanded for adultary in the Quran, though it's used later,"

Is your latest comment an error, or are you back to the position suggested in your earlier statement?

The punishment under Sharia law was to give them a chance to "repent." If they claimed any other sentiment, they would most likely be stoned to death.