Woman facing stoning in Iran sentenced to 99 lashes -- not even in place of stoning, but for new alleged offense

Any comments, Mr. President? Is this one of those "shared values" that Islam has with the West?

Iran is obviously guilty of torture...They can't kill her 'yet' because of public outcry, but they can, will, and are torturing her...Maybe Ibrahim Hopper or Rehab can explain this? Daisy? Mayor Bloomberg?

OT:

Check out this Muslim-authored article in the Miami Herald today called "Tracing the roots of Islamophobia."

Pam Geller is denounced in the final paragraph of the article, and is called a "virulent voice."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/05/v-fullstory/1808542/tracing-the-roots-of-islamophobia.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1878630#Comments_Container

Torture her a bit before brutally executing her... Yep, that sounds like islam.

Its almost as though these islamic savages want to see how low they can go to prove their love for muhammad...

The woman and the men are all guilty of fornication. But the woman was without hijab, which is indecent. As for the men, as they humped away they no doubt had the decency to keep their Kufi Kaps on, out of respect for Moslimas everywhere, out of respect for Islam.

*** 33:21 ***

This debate over stonings and lashings tends to put Islam in a bad light. My recommendation to the men over at the Bill Gates Network (note: Rachel has a beard) is that they focus on the promiscuity of this Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani gal. That'll kill time enough to get them to a commercial break without talking about that aspect of the case. Or, you could just ignore the story altogether.

And what of the Kufi Kap Men? They had their caps on, yes, but they had their zippers down, too. And why in the hell were they with a widow and not a 9-yr old boy? It seems to me that since the killing spree by Muhammad and Lee Malvo, Moslem Men have been slipping from dedication to the Cause:

Ibn Abd al-Barr relates, in his Istiab fi Marifat al-as-hab that the Prophet, after forbidding two or three times the use of khaluq (a kind of perfume mixed with saffron), and finding that Sawad ibn Amr al-Qari al-Ansari was wearing it, nudged him in the midsection with a palm tree stalk and scratched him. The latter asked for reparation; when the Prophet bared his own belly to him, he jumped and kissed the Prophet's belly.

The only people who needs to be stoned to death are the mad achamdinnarhad, and his merry band of goon mullahas. Line em up, bury them to the shoulders and drop walls on them and throw stones at the same time. Their punishment is waiting , we just need some brave Iranians to do it.

I have absolutely no doubt that right now, Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf and a host of other feminist writers are spitting blood while tapping out articles about this crime against an innocent women found guilty by a male judge applying the law of a 7th Century misogynist legal system.

And if not, why the f*** not!

Faces of compassion from the followers of the religion of peace:

Peaceful protests in London
http://www.google.co.nz/images?q=muslims+protesting+in+london&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMY_enNZ358NZ378&prmd=v&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=3xSDTMzUE8zBccbCtNAL&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CA4Q_AU&prmdo=1&biw=1000&bih=563

This poor woman. She still doesn't know her fate. Is there any way they will let her live? I don't think so.

Torturing people based on allegations...yep...pure Islam...

A lot of pain inducing activities seem to come out of their little book of inspiration. And love too is a major part of their little book of inspiration, love of hatred that is. The mein Kampf had nothing on the quran,

Thousands of years ago, there was the Stone Age. In the 1960s, we saw the rise of the Stoned Age. Now, under Islam, we have the Stoning Age.
Ancient traditions are being preserved in Iran, which in a quaint way resembles a sort of sado-masochistic Colonial Williamsburg, where delusional guides wear old-fashioned costumes and actually believe that they live in seventh century Arabia.

Islam derives its primitive rage, sadism and fanaticism from sexual repression. These people are profoundly sick and twisted and should never be allowed to achieve positions of power in any civilized society. http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-is-powered-by-muslim-sexual.html

I can't believe how men treat women. This type of abuse is totally uncalled for. Totally disrespectful towards mankind. I bet if half of these women were men. You'd run if they even looked at you wrong. You scared middle east idiots.

Bizarro-World. It never fails you.

Is Mohammed the 'seal' of the Abrahamic prophets and God's final word, or is he the Anti-Christ?

Taqiyya Tactic number 8 from http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-tactics-of-taqiyya.html

[8] 'Abrahamic/monotheistic faith' false kin argument.
This scam usually take the form of 'Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic/ monotheist faith.'
Of course it isn't! Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea. (Mark 9:42). In Islam stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam.

Bizarro-World is the Socialist People's Party in Denmark too. They want to abolish the annual Christian service for the entire Parliament, while at the same time eagerly supporting a Parliamentary dinner celebrating the Ramadan. I suppose they see no contradiction. Bizarro-World.

Meanwhile, Iran is funding $1000 A KILL bounty on U.S. Coalition service personnel in Afghanistan.

Obama need to take a permanent vacation.

And let someone with some brains and balls take the helm.

O/T But intersting lies on the part of American Muslims

"For US Muslims, a 9/11 anniversary like no other"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100905/D9I1JAQG0.html

"We can expect crazy people out there will do things, but we don't want to create a hysteria," among Muslims, said Victor Begg of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. "Americans, in general, they support pluralism. It's just that there's a lot of misinformation out there that has created confusion."

Great article full of complete crap, complete with lies and created problems.

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

Hasn’t the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn’t — it’s gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding “NO SHARIA LAW” signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I’d say, oh, none. Roughly.
Shariah (also spelled shari’ah or sharia or shari’a) is the Arabic word for “the road to the watering place.” In a religious context, it means “the righteous path.” Loosely, it can mean simply, “Islam.”

There are six principles of shariah. They are derived from the Qur’an, which Muslims believe is the word of God. All Islamic religious rules must be in line with these six principles of shariah.
Aha! The six principles must be about killing infidels, veiling women, stoning people for adultery, honor killings and female genital cutting, right? Nope.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:
1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

Well, bless me, as a pledge-of-allegiance-reciting, California-raised Muslim girl, these six principles sound a lot like those espoused in my very own Constitution of the United States. Except that these were developed over a thousand years ago.

This is the core of shariah — these six principles. The term “shariah law” is a misnomer, because shariah is not law, but a set of principles. To Muslims, it’s the general term for “the way of God.”

But how do we know what the way of God is? Early Muslims looked to the Qur’an and the words of the Prophet Muhammad to figure this out. They filled books of interpretive writings (called fiqh) about how to act in accordance with the way of God. They rarely agreed — the fiqh is not just one rule, but many differing opinions and contradictory rules and scholarly debates.

Sometimes, shariah also refers to the whole body of Islamic texts, which includes the Qur’an, the sayings of the Prophet, and the books of interpretive literature written by medieval Muslim scholars. The first two are considered divine. The interpretive literature, the fiqh, is not.
The fiqh was meant to develop and change according to the time and place — it has internal methodologies for that to happen. It is not static, but flexible. No religion gets to be 1400 years old and the second largest in the world unless it’s flexible and adaptable.

The Qur’an is old. The fiqh books of jurisprudence are old. To modern eyes, they can look just as outdated as other ancient texts, including the Bible and Torah. That’s why, just like the Bible and the Torah, the Islamic texts must be read in their historical context.

Assuming all Muslims follow medieval Islamic rules today is like assuming that all Catholics follow 9th century canon law. Islam, like Christianity, has changed many times over the centuries, and it continues to change. Focusing only on the nutcases who advocate a return to medieval times is ignoring the vast majority of modern Muslims.

For example, stoning for adultery is a punishment that appears in fiqh, as well as early Judaic law. But it does not appear in the Qur’an. In Islam, therefore, stoning was a result of cultural norms imposed on the religious texts. Moreover, in the fiqh, though the punishment for adultery was stoning, adultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world, which is ironic, since today the Saudi and Iranian governments apply it as though they’d never heard of the strict Islamic constraints on it.

The vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery, and many are working hard to eradicate it. Stoning is horrific and has no place in our world. The miniscule percentage of Muslims who advocate it are imposing the medieval penalty while ignoring all the myriad limitations meant to make it inapplicable.

As for other scary stories attributed to shari’a, like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic. They are practiced by non-Muslims of certain cultures as well as Muslims.

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

As for Islam being a political system, there is nothing in the Qur’an about an “Islamic state,” and the Prophet himself never tried to implement an “Islamic state,” despite hysterical accusations to the contrary. Those under his leadership practiced a variety of religions.

Traditionally, in the Islamic world, the institutions that governed were always separate from the institutions that developed religion. In fact, they often checked and balanced one another. Although no civilization has been free from all conflict, every Islamic empire was a multi-religious, multicultural empire, in which religious minorities were governed by their own laws.

The term “Islam as a religion and a state” really only became popular in the 1920s, as a reaction to Western colonization of the Muslim world. In fact, Islam contains plenty of concepts consistent with modern democracy — for example, shura (consultation) and aqd (a contract between the governed and the governing). In other words, Muslims can be perfectly comfortable in America, following state and federal laws.

The Qur’an contains many verses advocating religious tolerance, too, though the anti-Islam protesters won’t believe it. The Qur’an says that: God could have made everyone into one people, but elected not to (11:118); God made us into different nations and tribes so that we can learn from one another (49:13); there is no compulsion in religion (2:256); and that we should say, “to you your religion, to me mine” (109:6).

The only verses about fighting in the Qur’an refer specifically to the polytheistic Arab tribes who were trying to kill the Prophet in the 7th century. So the Islamophobes who look in the Qur’an for the fighting verses and assume that these verses refer to them personally are simply being narcissistic. Contrary to counting Jews and Christians as “infidels,” the Qur’an repeatedly commands particular respect of Jews and Christians. It is established in Islam that you don’t need to be Muslim to go to heaven.

Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true; but it certainly results in people believing the lie. That’s what the Islam-haters are counting on. That, and the ignorance about Islamic tenets.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

Bigotry may be a human tendency, but America has never stood for bigotry. I believe in an America that stands for pluralism and multicultural understanding. The hysteria and hate toward Muslims – resulting in several acts of violence against Muslims just this week, such as a stabbing and arson – is un-American. We must stop it, and the first step is understanding and education.

-----
Sumbul Ali-Karamali is an attorney with an additional degree in Islamic law, as well as the author of “The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.”

I have a little bitty problem with Islamic nationalism. I don't know where in the Koran this comes from, but NO religion has 'waters' to protect. No such thing as 'occupied' Catholic land. Want to start wars? How about we charge all Muslims a 'poll tax' for living in the U.S.? This will exempt them from military service. (Seeing as it is dangerous to have them in the military in the first place)

NO. This is why have a PROFESSIONAL army, not some irregular forces that arise from religious conviction. The Crusades were the Christian army, but this ended centuries ago. (Exception: Islam)

The Pope cannot enforce the Catholic Church's prohibition on abortion. Don't try and tell any of us that Islam is NOT enforcing at least some, if not many of Islamic laws. Iran is probably one of the governments that is most closely following the Islam legal jurisprudence from the past 1350 years.

Lots of other issues where the Islam is at war against the modern nation-state. But, besides all that, I thought that it specifically states in the Koran that a man may take his wife even against her will because in Islam men have no other outlet.

Then we have the argument about being able to hit your wife. How can this even be an argument? Can't deny the fact that so many are arguing about it, even if you are against it.

Keep up the B.S. If you live long enough, maybe someone who 'enforces' Islamic law will declare you an Apostate. We all know the penalty for that.

To Loonscout:

My, my, my....what a tangled web of deception we weave...

You said:

... There is no hadith sahih that mentions anything even remotely related to the absurdity that you posted, and if there was, it would fall under the category of unaccepted, invalid,...

It appears that some of our muslim posters here on JW don't quite understand their "islam":

To understand the authoritative nature of the example of Mohammed, we have to understand something of the Muslim hadiths. They hold a higher place in Sunni Islam than church tradition does in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Sunni Muslims hold to six collections of hadiths as the most authoritative writings in Islam after the Qur’an. The rest of this paper shows that the accusation is completely true, according to numerous corroborating early Muslims sources. In addition to these quotes from the six authoritative hadiths is a reference from the highly respected early Muslim historians ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari.

1. Sahih al-Bukhari 810-870 A.D. 256 A.H.

1a. "Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.236 p.153.

1b. The same points are in Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.234 p.152.

2. Sahih Muslim 817-875 A.D. 261 A.H.

This is generally considered the second most reliable collection of hadiths.

2a. "(3309) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have shared in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him." Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 ch.548 no.3309 p.715-716

2b. "(3310) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old."

(3311) ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married here when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her: and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old." Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 8 ch.548 no.3310,3311 p.716.

2c. "(5981) ’A’isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

2d. (5982) This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters with a slight variation of wording." Sahih Muslim vol.4 book 29 ch.1005 no.5981-5982 p.1299

3. Sunan Abu Dawud 817-888/9 A.D. 275 A.H.

3a. "(2116) ‘A’ishah said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said : Or six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old." Sunan Abu Dawud vol.2 book 5 ch.700 no.2116 p.569

3b. "(4913) ‘A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1769 no.4913 p.1373

Note carefully this is NOT saying Mohammed had intercourse with A’isha while her playmates were watching. Rather it says the playmates played with her, and they went out when Mohammed came by, and could come back after he was finished with her.

3c. "(4915) ‘A’ishah said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Abu Dawud said : That is to say : I menstruated, and I was brought in a house, and there were some women of the Ansari (Helpers) in it. They said : With good luck and blessing. The tradition of one of them has been included in the other. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4915 p.1374

3d. (5916) [typo, really 4916] The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Abu Usamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators. This version has: ‘With good fortune.’ She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4916 p.1374

3e. (4917) ‘A’ishah said: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were [sp] up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4917 p.1374

3f. (4918) The tradition mentioned above has also been transmitted by Hisham b. ‘Urwah through a different chain of narrators. This version adds: I was swinging and I had my friends. They brought me to a house ; there were some women of the Ansar (Helpers). They said : With good luck and blessing. Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4918 p.1374

3g. (4919) ‘A’ishah said : We came to Medina and stayed with Banu al-Harith b. al-Khazraj. She said : I swear by Allah, I was swinging between two date-palms. Then my mother came, and made me come down; and I had my hair up to the ears. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition." Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3 book 36 ch.1770 no.4915-4919 p.1374.

Conclusion on Abu Dawud: 7 references and no counter-references affirm that A’isha was nine.

4. Tirmidhi 825-892 A.D. 209-279 A.H.

"..Ahmad and Is'haq said that if a female orphan reaches nine years old and was wed with her consent, then the marriage is permissible and she will have no choice when she matures. The two relied on a hadith by Ai'sha stating that the prophet peace be upon him had sexual relations with her when she was nine. Aisha said, if the little girl reaches nine then she is a woman" Tirmidhi said: A good hadith. (Tirmidhi, "Marriage according to Allah's apostle", #1027)

Conclusion on Tirmidhi: 1 reference and no counter-references affirm that A’isha was nine.

5. Sunan Nas’ai 830-915 A.D. 215-303 A.H.

5a. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married her when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3255)

5b. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was seven and had intercourse with me when I was nine. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3256)

5c. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was nine and I accompanied him for nine years. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3257)

5d. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married her when she was nine and died when she was eighteen. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3258)

5e. A’ishah said: The Apostle of Allah peace be upon him married me when I was six and had intercourse with me when I was nine and I was playing with dolls. (Sunan Nas’ai, Book of Marriage, no.3256)

Note that the previous are in original Arabic, but were not in the English translation. However, the English translator at the front wrote the following under #18.

"When Hadrat ‘A’isha passed nine years of married life, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fell in mortal sickness. On the 9th or the 12th of Rabi-ul-Awwal 11 A.H., he left this mortal world…Hadrat ‘A’isha was eighteen years of age at the time when the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed away and she remained a widow for forty-eight years till she died at the age of sixty-seven." Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #18 p.108-109 (English material at the front)

Note that she had nine years of married life with Mohammed, and since he died when she was eighteen, she was nine years old when she started her married life with Mohammed.

Conclusion on Sunan Nasa’i: Not counting English translation notes, the Arabic has 5 references and no counter-references to affirm that A’isha was nine.

6. Ibn-i-Majah 824-886/887 A.D. 273 A.H.

6a. A’isha was married when she was six years old, and nine when she went to Mohammed’s house. Ibn-i-Majah vol.3 book 9 ch.13 no.1876 p.133

6b. A’isha was married at seven, went to Mohammed’s house at nine, and was 18 when Mohammed died. According to al-Zawa’id, its isnad is sahih according to the condition of Bukhari. However Abu ‘Ubaida did not hear from his father, so it is munqata (has a gap) Ibn-i-Majah vol.3 book 9 ch.13 no.1877 p.134.

7. The Historian ibn Ishaq - died 767/773 A.D. 145/151 A.H.

7a. "Yahya b. Abbad b. Abdullah b. al-Zubayr from his father told me that he heard Aisha say: "The apostle died in my bosom during my turn: I had wronged none in regard to him. It was due to my ignorance and extreme youth that the apostle died in my arms.""
(Guillaume, A., The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan, page 682). A’isha said she was an extreme youth when Mohammed died.

8. The Historian al-Tabari - died 923 A.D.

8a. ‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.9 (year A.H. 10) p.129-131. Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the transmitters.

8b. ‘Aisha was 6-7 when married, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9-10, three months after coming to Mecca al-Tabari vol.7 (year A.H. 1) p.7. The chain of transmission includes an unnamed man from the Quraysh.

8c. Aisha died in June-July 678 A.D. (A.H. 58) at the age of 66. That would make her born in 610 A.D.. al-Tabari says she consummated her marriage with the prophet when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.39 p.171,173. (al-Tabari wrote 38 volumes of history, plus a 39th volume called Biographies of the Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors.)

Tell us, Loonscout, which of of these "esteemed" muslim scholars you're going to throw out with the bathwater?

Answer: You CAN NOT deny any of this. So what Davey said above is completely and perfectly true (at least according to the islamic fairy tails).

I am really looking forward to your refutations that al-Bukhari is a "weak" transmitter of the sayings of the unholy profit.

http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

(Apologies for the long quotes.)

Although Islamic legal systems are indeed barbaric, but there is something to be said for their efficiency in eliminating violent criminals that victimize Muslims. I am puzzled why JW is championing this woman who cuckolded her husband and caused his death at the hand of lover. In better times in America she would get the chair. Also, an Iranian homosexual rapist was sentenced to death for sodomizing a boy and JW posted that as if it was an outrage a couple of years ago. I seem to remember that my comment was deleted. Capital punishment for most of human history and even during the recent past in western countries was the proscribed punishment for killers and rapists. Muslims commit real outrages that all can agree on... Why waste time harping on anything else? If anything, our own societies would be much safer if the worst of the worst got their due and did not spend decades wasting millions in incarceration costs, legal costs and top of line medical care, including receiving organs ahead of law abiding citizens. The worst criminals are the kings of American prisons and they have the power and respect they seek while making money and having access to weak non-violent criminals to practice their sadism and psychopathy on.

That is the attraction of Sharia to societies where violent crime is rampant and criminals have no fear. This is another failure of the liberal West which have given the worst criminals a carte blanche to prey on society.

Well, Loonscout, instead of inviting us to Loonwatch and Spencerwatch, and then censoring our arguments big time there, you come here with an expanded explanation, good!

Davegreybeard is so right that we must take the opportunity to refute your points one by one. And many excellent posts above have been doing that. Both sides provided me with much material, because your points are circulating everywhere in the world and now I know the answers to them.

I myself like to put to you: - The most important Islamic guiding texts are incomplete, self-contradicting here and there, very ambiguous, vague, prone to misunderstanding. And they ARE misunderstood by far too many Muslims. There are far too many different interpretations of these texts. And infidels have to deal with all Muslims, understanders and misunderstanders alike.

Your most holy texts are at fault, and it makes you Muslims sitting ducks for people like us. But most of us do it ONLY because of worldwide Islam-supremacy-practices and designs.

But you Muslims do not update your most important guiding texts, you are incapable of imposing authority over the vast majority of Muslims. You are content to let the name Muslim be used by any one who says the shahada, so to speak, more concerned to keep Muslims inside "Islam", than you are in letting the ones inside it be proper right understanding Muslims.

The proper Muslims that you say you are. You even call other Muslims nutcases. But all the same, when nutcase, misunderstanding Muslims make Islam benefit in an unfair way and other religions/ atheism suffer or being stifled, then your group of Muslims profits from that.

You profit from the so-called radical Muslims, but then you proceed to protest against infidels who justly react to the unjust and detrimental-for-infidels-actions of All Muslims, NOT just your group.

You should see that first you have to somehow come up with a clear democratic version of Islam, and come on board of the Democratic community worldwide and sever your group from the Ummah, before your arguments carry weight and are seen as sincere, in my opinion.

These so-called "six principles" of the Sharia brought forward here by loonscout - in such a sneering manner I first thought loonscout was poking fun at them, lol - reminds me of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" versus the "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam" controversy. Meaning that the Sharia is a limiter. Sure, you can turn and twist the Quran to make up all sorts of claims if you really intend to live in a peaceful and civilized society, or make it appear so, but the bottom line is always that the Sharia limits the position, place and rights of individuals physically, mentally, spiritually, socially, intellectually and politically. I see little cause for superior sneering.

And "loonscout" is spinning in her Burqa, still smarting from previous bruisings, and trying to explain to her master -- who is likely half distracted by one of his other wives -- why on EARTH she would post such transparent BS taqiyya at JW?

JW of all places!

Oh, she's wordy and long winded alright, and surely she must be impressive-sounding to gullible infidels in her attempt at spin, but in the end she's just another bruised slave of Allah, spinning in her sartorial prison and frantically casting out the bullshi'ite in every direction.

Where are all the peaceful moderate muslims speaking
out or protesting to save this womens life.
The bottom line is that the moderate muslims
dont have a leg to stand on because they
dont have the writings in the quran or hadith
to back up there moderate stance. Radical islam
will always rule because radical islam IS islam. An article
came out in the NY Post stating that the womens
son has appealed to the Pope for help. I guess
there arent any compassionate muslim organizations
that he can appeal to. You see, this proves that there is
no moderate islam. I mean where are all those muslims
that call us islamophobes now; they are silent on this issue
which our stance to oppose islam is correct.

I guess so, Marisol.

I’m feelin’ kinda lonesome - but I think I’ll get over it.

I read most of the comments with some condiderable interest. However many writers seem to have missed the point of this trial and the sentences imposed upon the widow, Mrs. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. First, begin with the crimes of which she is accuesed. These are:

1. Illicit sex with two men after the death of her husband. She has already received 99 lashes for these "crimes".
2. Adultery with one man while still married. She has been sentenced to death by stoning for this crime.
3. Complicity in the death of her husband. This is another reason for a death sentence in many countries, and Iran is not really much different to many others in this regard. The death sentence in Iran is usually carried out by hanging.

I cannot say anything about the accusation of complicity in the death of her husband. But we can say something about the sentences imposed upon this woman for the "crimes"of adultery and "illicit" sex. So I quote the following passages my "Religious Discrimination Against Women" website.

These sentencing practices actually have nothing whatsoever to do with justice as meted out by the Quran, the fundamental holy book of all followers of Islam, and the fundament of Islamic relgious law. The Quran contains only two passages dealing with the punishment of fornication and adultery.

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (Quran 24:2)

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. (Quran 4:15)

The punishment for adultery in Surah 4:15 is very vague, and opens the possibility for other punishments ordained by Allah. This passage means that stoning and other punishments ordained by Allah through his prophet Mohammed could be applied. Moreover this punishment would only be inflicted upon the woman. Is this the justification for only flogging and stoning the woman and not the man? But the Surahs in the Quran were not revealed in the order they appear in the Quran. Surahs in the Quran are generally placed in the order of the longest first and the shortest last, regardless of when they were revealed. Now Surah 24 was revealed to Mohammed at a later date than Surah 4, and the punishment of 100 stripes is very specific and clear. Moreover, due to the wonder of the principle of "abrogation" in the Quran, revelations in later Surahs negate, or abrogate those in earler Surahs. So because Surah 24 was revealed to Mohammed at a later date than Surah 4, the statements regarding punishments for adultery and "illicit" sex negate those in the earlier Surah 4. Therefore, according to the Quran, the two men with whom she had "illicit" sex, as well as the man with whom she committed adultery, should have been flogged along with this woman for these "crimes". But only the woman was flogged, and not the two men with whom she had "illicit" sex, nor the man with whom she committed adultery. Strange and curious. Why was the man not sentenced to be stoned along with the woman? He was just as guilty as she. But only Mrs Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was imprisoned, flogged, and sentenced to be stoned to death. This is predjudical misogynous justice going against all principles of the Quran! Does this mean the Quran is not the prime source of knowledge and basis for Iranian religious justice? The lawgivers in Iran appear to be heretical infidels and will certainly burn in hell with all other sinners....