'Unlawful sex': lovers sentenced to 100 lashes in U.A.E.

1 lash is too many!

Thanks Ima..

Well if the punishment was only 0 lashes, there wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

Salut Jacko..

Why should they be punished at all?

That there is ANY PUNISHMENT AT ALL for something done between two consenting adults is the point, as ImNoDhimmi so rightly queried. Welcome BACK to the 7th Century.

They used to have that kind of deterrent in America...Remember the stocks and pillories...Those were the days, public punishment and humiliation...Hangings, burnings, beheadings, deterred a lot of would be criminals and heretics...In those days, witches or those accused, would be burned at the stake in public...the whole town including children would turn out to watch...When you think you could be next for this 'special' treatment, that is more than a deterrent, it is terrorism...It's another way for the elite to control the public...We lost most of that when 'cruel and unusual punishment', was banned...
We will get some of that back when sharia is installed as a deterrent...
Will we ever see a sharia beheading or stoning in America, as punishment and deterrent? Probably not, but I wouldn't guarantee it...

Which of the following punishments would you prefer?
1) Lose 20% of all your assets to lawyers, 50% of the rest goes to your ex. Add alimony and child support.
2) A couple of lashes.

Aisha with a butt-plug..That's islam..

..How coud I forget..pardon me..and a knife to her throat..after mo's through with her..

Not for Muslims!!! They may be willing take even 500 lashes to please Mo.

They love sharia laws imposed on them. After all these are their god Mo/allah's laws!!!

Exsgtbrown wrote:

Were they other Muslim witnesses? Who knew? and Who informed the religious police?...Muslims must be spying on each other being eager to see Islamic justice carried out...
........................

Very important point, Exsgtbrown. Many ex-Muslims have spoken about the horrific, continuous phenomenon in Dar-al-Islam of people constantly gossiping and spying on each other.

In addition to the apparatus of Shari'ah law itself, its courts and "religious police", Islam can count on the Ummah itself—or even *fear* of the Ummah itself—to keep many of its members 'in line'.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish have discussed this many times—as have many other ex-Muslims.

Islam is all about guarding and hiding one's own "shame", and uncovering and reporting the "shame" of others. What a horrifying way to live.

Which of the following punishments would you prefer?
1) Lose 20% of all your assets to lawyers, 50% of the rest goes to your ex. Add alimony and child support.
2) A couple of lashes.

If I had no self respect, and loved money more than personal dignity, I would opt for the lashes...

Your wish for the movie might come true. But there is a little one pretty close to the title you want. Its called "F Mohammad and Islam"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuhjpU5Rin4

Exactly. Even symbolic Christian lashes would "flesh out" the Leftist blogs and MSM front pages for at least a week.

No one was burned at the stake or beheaded in America, not even in Salem.

The "witches" there were hanged.

And I find the condition either/or to be of no value. The two are unconnected - particularly in the case of this post - and so the suggestion is of no value and only put up here to muddy the waters. The comment by Nicholson is fallacious and consisting of mere statements.

I can add that in the practice of law as seen in some Muslim countries and how it is described and eagerly anticipated by some Muslims living in the Western world, the result would very likely be lashes whatever is said and done: the concept of defense is not writ into it, the judge being also the prosecutor and cleric and everything.

Marken- Christ 6 centuries before Mohammad said that if you look at a woman sexually you have committed adultery in your heart, pointing out the fact that we are all inwardly immoral.

Sorry but you can learn nothing about a woman sexuality from Jesus. He kept his own wife under wraps - not even many christians know that he was married - and was infact present at the last supper.

No if you want to understand women, know how to treat them with respect - you need to go to Islam.

"The "witches" there were hanged."

They were, with the exception of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death under a board with large stones placed upon it. He would have lived, had he "confessed", as many of the to-be-hanged "witches" had.

I've always admired him, for what are said to be his last words: "More weight".

Sorry Roland: you're yelling up the wrong street.
From what I've seen several times and from what my mother has experienced - and young women of my family this summer, now I think of it - "respect" does not enter it. Words like "grinning disrepect", "unashamed lust", and "triumphant harassment" are the mildest I can think of.
And yes, defenseless Muslim women were involved too, be they ever so much covered in butterfly dust.

And Roland, I think you have been watching "The Da Vinci Code" too many times.

Somebody needs to get over his divorce settlement.

Your right about hanging, and Salem, but that does not mean burning witches, or others did not happen, but it was more of a European thing... The official count of burned witches may be zero in the US, but that's the 'official' count...But I did put a little too much emphasis on it, to illustrate the overall point of shari rule and control by bodily punishments...

From an entry in a comments section to an article about about witch burning...

'the first witch to be burned at the stake was Rebecca nurse. I know this as a matter of fact because she i am a direct descendant of her, my grandmother's maiden name being Nurse. i also know this because our family has apology letters sent to us from the united states government from the late 70's apologizing for their unjust behavior hundreds of years ago'.

Another source says this about Rebecca:On July 3, Rebecca Nurse was excommunicated -- "abandoned to the devil and eternally damned." On July 19 she was driven in a cart with four other women to Gallows Hill where she was hung.

From Wickidpedia, which I don't normally use, but it says this:

In New York several burnings at the stake are recorded, particularly following suspected slave revolt plots. In 1708 one woman was burnt and one man hanged. In the aftermath of the New York Slave Revolt of 1712 20 people were burnt, and during the alleged slave conspiracy of 1741 no less than 13 slaves were burnt at the stake.

So burnings were not particularly popular in the US but they did happen...How many of those were 'unofficial' witch burnings is unknown, I don't think there were many, but I bet it's not zero...
At any rate, you are right that I overstated the case...

Ah, we have a winner....

Roland, O Pround Son of the Burning Desert Sands

In the first place your religion is invalid superstitious nonsense with no legitimate authority over anyone for any reason.

Neither you nor your raping, child molesting, insane "prophet" have a say in the choices of individuals about whom they will have sex with, or whether or not they are married, because, if you will excuse the expression, IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

Islam's "morality" condones murder, rape, theft, lying, slavery, and bestiality. A "moral system" based on supernaturalism combined with force is invalid and no one has the right to force it on anyone else. Your "highest authority" -- what, dirty illiterate old men in nightshirts? --
"streatching [sic]almost 1400 years" is CRAP based on the ravings of a lunatic.

Oh, and just to be fair, if "Christ" couldn't tell the difference between thought and action, that is his problem not mine. How many generations of young men and women had to cultivate sexual neuroses over that remark? This is what you get for slavishly accepting the musings of someone's gods as "law".

Stormwarning: Giles was indeed cool. But my favorite of the lot was Tituba, who had the sense to say hell, yeah, I was practicing witchcraft but I'm sorry and beg your forgiveness and won't do it again and went on her merry way while all the other poor principled victims (including the very colorful Wilmot "Mammy" Redd from my town) wound up hanged and dropped down a ravine to rot. (There is one haunting story of a man who had to row all the way up the river in the middle of the night to retrieve his mother's body.)

Religious zealots of all stripes are not safe to be around once they are energized with "moral fire" directed at their neighbors.

"No if you want to understand women, know how to treat them with respect - you need to go to Islam."

Whoa--Sweetie, I don't think you're supposed to strike your head against the floor. Just touch it to the floor, and the headaches and hallucinations will go away.

I've been paying attention to this "Islam respects women" thing, observing how actual treatment of women in places where Islam rules, vs that "respect".

Women, covered from head to toe are raped every day. By Muslim men. Women are pushed around, literally, on the streets. Women are confronted by strangers with machine guns, if they are not "properly covered". Strange men are allowed to strike a woman in the marketplace if she laughs too loudly, if her bracelets jingle, or if her tread upon the ground is too heavy to suit them.

In Islam, a woman is worth less than a man--I can't wait to find out how these men accomplish birth without women.

I'll take a pass on the Islamic "respect", if you don't mind. In fact, I'll take a pass on it, if you do mind.

Sorry, "there is no fun in Islam".

Dar-al-Islam, where men are men and sheep are nervous.

There is zero evidence that Jesus had a wife and you can't produce any. But, of course, long ago I realized that facts for Muslims are optional. Hey, they were optional for Mohammed. He made up a hell of a lot of stuff and gullible people called Muslims have fallen for it over the centuries. Like you.

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks, Daniel. Criticism of Islamic jurisprudence regarding adultery offers also a chance for the West to examine its own values and mores.
The prohibition of adultery in the decalogue is, at minimum, a recognition of the societal disruption caused by extramarital affairs. It is in a society's interest to discourage adultery. Indeed, less than 80 years, commiting adultery was a felony in the US.
Whether you view adultery as wrong because it is against God's command, or view it as wrong because it is damaging to communities and families, it is legitimate for a society to establish rules, laws, customs, licenses, etc. to discourage the occurrence. Fear of penalty in this life or the next may be sufficient to deter most. In Islam, the threat is 100 lashes in this life. In Christianity, the threat is an eternity of hellfire. Both are severe and who is to say which is the more effective deterrent?
In the enlightened West, we now tolerate adultery. No secular punishment needed -- it's a moral infraction only. We overlook the societal cost that a permissive attitude toward adultery brings: single-parent families, spousal abuse, poverty, gangs, venereal disease, etc. But that's OK in a culture of "what happens it Vegas stays in Vegas."
Adultery doesn't go entirely unpunished in the West. Warring spouses, egged on by their divorce attorneys, tear at one another until both are substantially poorer and their lives, and the lives of any children, are irrevocably harmed. It's as if we say "If you don't fear caning or eternal damnation, you had better fear our courts."
While lilredbird would like to believe that I speak from personal experience, that's not the case. Over 50% of all marriages end in divorce so we all know a family that has been through it. It's way too common and yet where are the Western proposals for a solution. Do we like things the way they are?
If the punishment were 2 lashes, we wouldn't think it was severe enough for a news story. Somewhere between 2 and 100 the number becomes cruel and horrifying. And that's my point: adultery is immoral, wrong, sinful, and damaging but not so bad that we're willing to actually penalize someone for doing it. The only Western societal punishment that approaches the level of a slap on the wrist is the divorce process.
We don't take that commandment very seriously, I suppose. Perhaps we should change it to "The Ten Suggestions"

Jesus never married.

Oooh, someone's a tad bitter!

With your views, I'm not surprised your wife dumped you.

Correction:

It is beneficial to be mindful of one's own thoughts, and words, and actions, and to strive to do no evil, and to strive to do what is beneficial (what is skillful).

These are rules from the people in the know - from the highest authority streatching (sic) almost 1400 years - what's not to like - just educate yourself and enjoy.

I am sure that you are determined to educate us whether we wish it or not; but many of us have educated ourselves concerning Islam, and we find Islam lacking.

Here are several things about this brutal religion, among others, not to like:

-An incoherent, inconsistent, illogical, invalid rant from an illiterate, who, with extraordinary hubris, delivered his hate-laden filth with the blasphemous claim that his was the final, unalterable, recitation from God, meant to stand until the end of time. He then spread his baleful “truth” by violent means and exhorted others to do the same as in these verses sampled from his book: 2:216, 2:244, 3:56, 4: 74, 4: 104, 5:33, 8: 39, 8: 59-60, 9:29,…There are more than a hundred verses like them.

-A God in this Qur’an who claims to be sufficient unto himself; yet needs abject slaves to worship him five times a day. In Virgil’s epic, Aeneas complained that, “it was a pain to found the Roman race,” - (Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem Bk.I:33) - but then went on to fulfill his duty. Allah, on the other hand, boasts so much of his power, knowledge, and mercy, warns Mankind so often, and seems so put upon, that one wonders why he bothered to create humanity at all.

-A God who delights in punishing un-believers; is author of lies, creates people expressly for hell as if for his own entertainment, deliberately misleads men according to his “will,” and takes great pleasure in punishing them for the crime of being misled by him, and also punishes ordinary sinners himself. All this of course, eventually results in a legal code - the Shariah - that takes the words of this Allah as the pattern for its draconian punishments, creating one of the most hateful, soul crushing system of laws in the world, a system particularly inimical toward women.

-An aggressive iconoclasm, hostile to the human imagination; a hatred of all representational form, a disdain for the genius of other cultures… One would think that this practice was only a defense against idolatry, a way to interrupt the path of sin to the soul through the eye, if the followers of Muhammad did not also make an idol of the Qur’an and its words, showing a belief in, and an inordinate fear of, cathexis. In Islam, this pathology is so deep, that guards at Guantanamo Bay must wear gloves when they bring a copy of this hate-tome, to a wretched jihadhist who, whether he is poor, or the product of the middle class, throws his life away on a path to spread by violence, the religion of “Islam” for the glory of Allah. These jihadists never once take into consideration that they could be wrong; nor do they put themselves in the place of others. Why should they? Non-Muslims are not “protected” unless they are first accept diminished status.

-A prophet who was a failed merchant, and something of a kept man, when he enhanced his living by marrying his boss, Kadijah, a rich woman of the Banu Asad tribe and who was twice his age. One would have to say that Muhammad was not so choosy. Far worse though, Muhammad looked upon a child, Aisha, with what Augustine would have rightly called concupiscence – the lust of the eye. Even for the time and place, the girl was far too young for betrothal. Today we call people who look at children in this way, child molesters and pedophiles.

-A ceremony so puerile, and so risible, that it is the butt of jokes throughout the free world. Pun intended.

There is more of course, but this is ought to be more than enough reason to dislike Islam just for a start.

Islamismus delendus est.

Daniel

with all due respect - the more I find out about Judaism and the Jews, the more thoroughly and convincingly Jewish the person and teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth appear to me.

He doesn't, to me, give off a Hindu or a Buddhist 'feel'. Nor - and I have read Ovid's Metamorphoses, and Homer, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the great Greek playwrights, and Virgil and Cicero and so on - does he 'feel' in any way like them.

The idea that he went to India and borrowed ideas from Eastern philosophy is, I really do think, a furphy.

Have you read Franz Rosenzweig's "The Star of Redemption"?

He identifies Christianity and Judaism as having far more in common with each other than with anything else; as indeed being, vis a vis every other surviving thought-system, sui generis.

Essentially, Rosenzweig divides the 'religious' universe into religions of personal response to the personal revelation of a loving G-d - YHWH - on the one hand, and into what he calls paganism, on the other, which fundamentally does not understand god and humanity in that way. Islam, though ostensibly 'monotheistic' is classified by Rosenzweig as fundamentally 'pagan' (and Rosenzweig's definition of what 'paganism', or perhaps one should call it 'non-biblical' systems, are, is interesting). Tom Cahill in 'The Gifts of the Jews' makes a very similar sort of assessment of Judaism, the faith found in the TaNaKh, vis a vis other thought-worlds; and my favourite modern Christian theologian, David Bentley Hart, who is thoroughly acquainted with the pagan Greco-Roman philosophers, and with the writings of the Gnostics, and who has read at least some of the Hindu texts, shows pretty clearly that anyone who wants to see Christianity as just one more pagan mystery-cult, no different from anything else on offer at the time, has got their work cut out for them.

(I will add that everything that Hart identifies as defining Christianity, the whole shape of its central narrative, the character of Yeshua as well as his teachings, is both profoundly Jewish and, in relation to the surrounding non-Jewish cosmos, downright revolutionary. Hart never fails to acknowledge and emphasise - and indeed, celebrate - the Jewish matrix of Christianity).

I think you might enjoy Hart's books - I commend "The Doors of the Sea", and "The Beauty of the Infinite" (the best part of the book is the section entitled "The Consolations of Tragedy, the Terrors of Easter", but the discussion of Nietzsche's attempted revival of classical paganism, in the section entitled 'The Will to Power' is also worth reading). He also wrote a book called "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies", of which the second half, where he deals with the nature of the revolution that Christianity in fact achieved, when it irrupted into the late greco-roman pagan world, is brilliant.

Of course, cutting across Rosenzweig's taxonomy of religions - biblical vs nonbiblical - one could divide philosophies and religions into those that - however radically differently they define what it is to be human, and how the divine manifests itself to and/ or may be known or not known by the human - affirm the ethical principle of reciprocity, the golden rule, versus and those that ...do not. If you use *that* criterion alone, then Hinduism and Buddhism and most other major extant religions line up alongside Christianity and Judaism on one side of a dividel and on the other side are the systems that - like Satanism, Nazism, and most egregiously and 'successfully' [in terms of numbers of adherents] ISLAM - reject the golden rule.

As for what happened between the birth of Yeshua and the start of his recorded ministry: I don't think he went to India and sat at the feet of Hindu or Buddhist sages. Frankly, I see that idea as plain old wishful thinking on the part of people who want to claim him for Hinduism and Buddhism rather than face up to his Jewishness. It's an idea particularly popular amongst the more woolly-headed New Age types.

I do think he spent time in the Jewish community of Alexandria - and for all we know, had relatives there. The story of his family's flight into Egypt to get away from the first Herod, is totally plausible. Not far to flee, really; and after all, at the time there were something like a million Jews living in Alexandria; what better place to 'disappear' for a while? Vanish like one grain of sand among thousands. If he had relatives in Alexandria, he'd have picked up ideas from that place of intellectual ferment *within* the Jewish community, that place where the TaNakh had already been translated, or paraphrased, into a Gentile language, producing the Septuagint and thus enabling curious Gentiles in that Greco-Roman world to find out what Judaism was about without first having to learn a whole new language and script.

That's OK.

No offence taken.

Let's just agree to disagree, so we can focus on what we *are* agreed upon: challenging and resisting Mohammedan barbarism.

O.K. Thank you.

Good. I'm glad.

Yes, I agree. However:

Although I realize that the following may hurt feelings, the following is important to know and understand.

The Jewish people are in, and, for almost two thousand years, have been in, a very painful difficult situation because of the Christian religion (Christianity). I will not now express the whole reality of that situation or how I feel about that situation, but I will say the following truth.

Western anti-Israeli (Western anti-Jewish) bigotry (mainly that held by the members of the political Left, but also that held by others) is the main factor that is causing the Western appeasement of, and the Western collusion with, the modern Islamic-Supremacist political movement (the currently approximately 90-year-old resurgence of, and European-"Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion"-Nazi-based modification of, authoritative Islam).

The following is a link to a comment that I posted earlier, on an earlier post on this web site, in which I included the contents of an essay (which I did not write) that accurately explains and describes this phenomenon. The essay was posted, as multiple comments, by an anonymous commenter (not myself), on a post on the blog A Liberal Defence of Israel, by Denis MacEoin, and also, as multiple comments, by an anonymous commenter (not myself), on a post on the blog Tundra Tabloids.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/the-global-freedom-initiative.html#comment-730347

The following are links to the original comments (which constitute the essay).

http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2010/07/lies-lies-and-lies-about-lies.html?showComment=1279117634509#c4188327328578745386

http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-got-mail-from-ingrid-in-norway.html?showComment=1275987391904#c3789403548304176650

The following excerpt from that essay accurately expresses my views about those who adhere to the Christian religion (Christianity) who, for ethical right reasons, support the country of the Jewish people.

...However, this doesn't necessarily imply that ALL Christians, or secular liberals are to blame. Quite the contrary, rather. Which means I also recognize the fact that those Christians, liberals, conservatives and secular Humanists (among others) in the West that have abolished this myth of 'Innate Guilt of Jews' from their personal belief system are indeed worthy of the praise that's due to them and the blogs they have created, for they realise, just as I have, that perpetuating such myths can only be attributed to those people who first and foremost want to covet a rotten mind, hating for the sake of hatred itself, and nothing more than that...