Ukraine: Muslim girl stoned to death for participating in beauty contest

http://schnellmann.org/stoning_bukhari_muslim.pdf
Many stoning ahadih Sahih ("reliable") Bukhari & Muslim
202 KB

Beauty pageants were a common occurrence in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown.

This has nothing to do with Islam, of course, since Islam honors women. It's just a cultural thing. (Thought I'd give a go at beating CAIR and their ilk to the punch.)

Ukraine: Muslim girl stoned to death for participating in beauty contest
.............................

This happened **in the Ukraine**? My God.

More:

The fact that this was an extrajudicial killing doesn't let Sharia off the hook. The fact that stoning is prescribed for adultery (as often as apologists might also try to deny it for non-Muslim consumption), where the murderers in this case apparently decided for themselves her actions were tantamount to adultery, doesn't let Sharia off the hook, either.
.............................

No, indeed. That stoning of a couple ordered in Pakistan was "extrajudicial" in that it was a tribal council rather than the national courts, but the woman is just as dead, and by just such savage means. (It should come as no surprise that the man was able to "escape")

Also, as Marisol notes: this horrific case in the Ukraine was over a girl *participating in a beauty contest*—which was obviously considered a form of Zina (unlawful sexual crime) rather than adultery per se.

Cases like this are a sharp rejoinder to those 'moralists' who present Shari'ah as harsh, but as a bulwark against such immorality as adultery. But here we see Shari'ah for what it is—where it calls for the murder of a girl who merely *entered a beauty contest*.

More:

The murderers' consciences were informed by these ideas, hence the lack of regret expressed below.
.............................

*Of course* there was no regret. These murderers were acting in the name of "the perfect man" and their savage God Allah.

More:

Police have opened a murder probe and are investigating claims that three Muslim youths killed her claiming her death was justified under Islam.
.............................

Muslims make up about 12% of the population in the Ukraine.

How long will it be before we hear about some poor girl being stoned to death in Britain or France, and her murderers similarly claiming they have "no regrets"?

Aren't there just as many young girls being stoned to death by Christians, Buddhists, Hindu, Scientologists, Unitarians and Republicans?

What I find most frightening about this is that there no mention of the four "honour" murderers being related to the girl.

The one quoted simply said it had no regrets because the girl had violated sharia.

Which reminded me of a recent post on another board by a "scholar" of islam who was declaring that kuranimals had the right to condemn, and punish these "prostitutes" because they were "...doing something against the will of Islam."

How much longer before these savages think they have the right to condemn and punish US for "...doing something against the will of Islam"?

So, far it seems these evil scumbags condemned and punished a girl who was NOT RELATED TO THEM for "...doing something against the will of Islam."

I wonder whether they raped her first? I wonder whether they enjoyed killing her while raping her? I wonder what gave them the most pleasure: killing her, or raping her, or doing the bidding of Muhammad?

I wonder whether such creatures can be described as human?

Subhuman Islam, subhuman Sharia, subhuman Taliban, subhuman every muslim who approves this kind of punishment. EVERY MUSLIM promoting Sharia should be prosecuted.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/09/stoning-by-taliban-verminslapidation.html

Does the pathological lack of remorse sound familiar? It reminds me of Muhammad Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, addressing himself, in court, to the mother of the man he had butchered in the street and saying: "I feel no sympathy for you because you are an unbeliever."

We will have to hear this kind of thing many hundreds of times before it becomes possible to say, anywhere but here, that Islam does not appear to be accomplishing the purpose of religion and making human nature better.

"Gaziev said he had no regrets about her death because she had violated the laws of Islam."

Islam....feel the love..

Heads up to the Jihad Watch people, we just had a Islamic lunatic here in Vancouver go nuts with a sword on the Burrard street bus, he was shot and killed by the police, they shot him in the leg but he still kept coming and then they tasered him in the back and finally shot him dead. Stay tuned for the News folks, these guys are seriously losing their minds....geeesh!

"Friends said she liked wearing fashionable clothes...A teenage Muslim girl was stoned to death under 'Sharia law' after taking part in a beauty contest in Ukraine."

because being nomal... is Un-Islamic

because being normal..is Un-Islamic...

This opens a ton of questions....What right did a 16 year old boy have to determine what violates Shariah Law? Who does he think he is to judge this girl as an offender of Shariah and deliver the punishment with his own hands? Who taught him this method of murder? His parents? His imam? Find those people and you'll get to the heart of this blood thirst they call a religion.

I'm sure that there is some psycho-sexual weirdness involved here, in a similar way that the Manson gang enjoyed torturing and killing women. At least Charles Manson didn't form a major world religion; his efforts weren't as rewarding for as many people as Mohammad's were. The lesson: Psychopathy is like business, you have to think big if you want to succeed.

Here's the story from Vancouver, they haven't said he was a Muslim yet but trust me he was, I live here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/police-shoot-non-lethal-bullets-taser-man-with-sword-in-vancouver/article2040401/

Showing multiculturalism cannot apply to those without culture. A base and vile religion of petulant children.

It is only fitting that the entire Islamic world should join together, Islamic style, Mohammad style, and stone to death every human being who will not eventually submit to and OBEY Muhammad's sick cult of Islam...

After all, Muhammad is the perfect and perfectly sane man and his Islam is the perfect religion of peace. Is it not?

Sahih Bukari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 706:

Narrated 'Aisha and 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

When the disease of Allah's Apostle got aggravated, he covered his face with a Khamisa, but when he became short of breath, he would remove it from his face and say, "It is like that! May Allah curse the Jews Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship." By that he warned his follower of imitating them, by doing that which they did.

In other words, YOU MUSLIMS, YOU MUST OBEY MUHAMMAD'S EVERY WORD, or you will be turned to stone and ruin forever... lolllllllllllllllll

Moslems sure do have problems with beauty pageants. From Lagos to Kiev, a bloody journey taken in a swimsuit competition.

Islam is nothing more than the convoluted cult of an evil mad man.

I'm not sure participating in a beauty contest is against sharia, but certainly violating Islamic dress codes is. (Restrictions on Muslim women's dress are ordered in the Quran and described in the Hadith, so there is no question that Muslims can take these as legally binding and articles of faith). Since flagrantly violating Islamic rules itself can be taken as evidence of apostasy, and the penalty for apostasy is death, and there is no penalty in Islam for killing an apostate, the thugs who killed this young woman may have an Islamic legal basis to stand on.

In these cases, there is an all-purpose sharia crime called "spreading corruption on earth" that could apply here. If someone is publicly promoting any behavior deemed contrary to Islam, this is deemed a great threat to Islam and Muslims, and the perpetrator of this sin-crime may be put to death (based on Quran 5:32-33).

If not, we can still note that the general attitudes promoted by Islam, and the approval of violence and even killing in "retaliation" for non-violent behaviors or expressions deemed "sinful" or contrary to Islam, could have contributed to this murder.

Then there are so-called "honor" killings. Sharia makes special exceptions in these cases, either reducing the penalty or waiving it completely.

From the Reliance of the Traveller:

O-4.17
"There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim at war with Muslims (harbi), someone who has left Islam, someone sentenced to death by stoning (A: for adultery (def: o-12) ) by virtue of having been convicted in court, or those it is obligatory to kill by military action (N: such as a band of highwaymen)"

O-5.4
"(O: There is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam, a highwayman (def: o-15). or a convicted married adulterer, even when someone besides the caliph kills him.)"

o8.4 "There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)."

From the caption in the article:

"Murdered: Katya Koren was attacked after taking part in a beauty contest which her friends said angered hardline Muslims"

Other background showing some Muslims believe women violating Islamic dress code must be violently punished and/or put to death:

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

Excepts:

"According to journalist Jane Kramer, in France, veiling among school girls became increasingly common following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, due to coercion by "fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates" of the school girls. "Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice."[35] According to the American magazine The Weekly Standard, a survey conducted in France in May 2003 reportedly "found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups."[36]"

"In Basra, Iraq, "more than 100 women who didn't adhere to strict Islamic dress code" were killed between the summer of 2007 and spring of 2008 by Islamist militias (primarily the Mahdi Army) who controlled the police there, according to the CBS news program 60 Minutes.

----------------------

The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK F: THE PRAYER (SALAT) >> Chapter F-17.0: Unlawful Clothing and Jewelry

"F-17.1
(A: It is offensive for men to wear tight clothing that discloses the size of the parts of their body which are nakedness (def: f-5.3), and this is unlawful for women"

"The murderers' consciences were informed by these ideas, hence the lack of regret..."

Real Muslims don't have consciences, because Islam works in a truly diabolical fashion to destroy the conscience of its believers.

The sole arbiter of what is right or wrong is Mohammed's ravings in the Koran, and the example he set by his predatory behavior.

Muslims worship this psychopathic, pedophilic thug as 'The Perfect Man'. If Mohammad did something then it's OK, in fact it's obligatory for Muslims to follow his example. In contrast, to follow one's own conscience is heresy and blasphemy.
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-child-sexual-abuse-muslim.html

We look towards Egypt and another way of handling a woman's most prized possession:

A general has confirmed that the military conducted virginity tests on female protesters.

"So that the women wouldn't later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities ......None of them were (virgins)."

Good to know.

Islamic Sariyah rulling is not a own rule. It established according to Qur'an and Sunnah. So, no one is here write to say, this is wright and wrong. Because, It is Right of Ummah of our. You will not find nothing when you crimes against Islamic Sariya.

Thanks U

Peace Be Upon You.
This sad event has definitely cast a dark shadow over a peaceful religion. Once again human innovations and cultural beliefs have corrupted the foundations of Islam in many communities. In the Quran it says very clearly [2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. This verse highlights how far these ignorant people have actually strayed from their own message. Forcing someone to conform to a personal belief is in no way justified by Islam nor is it an ‘Islamic Law’, it is an act of tyranny and condemned by God.
“...we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. ...” [Quran 5:32]
Associating a religion decreed to be peaceful, forgiving, and unbiased with these criminals who are the furthest strayers of the religion is only a burden on the majority of Muslims who condemn such actions as violations against Islam and barbaric. I am disgusted to see supposed 'submitters' justify this issue through 'Sharia law', they are very misguided by their own misinterpretations of baseless tradition attributed to the Prophet who's only message was to believe in God alone and believe in HIS scripture, not to plague the earth with a murderous mindset, commit criminal acts and believe you are indeed in some sort of position to decide the fate of a human life, shame on you.

Re. the Ukraine.

The Crimea region contains the 'Crimean Tatars' who are mostly Muslim.

There are some 400 000 Tatars in the Ukraine, nearly all of them Muslim.

My Christian sourcebook, Operation World, circa 2001, remarked that the New Testament was being translated into the Tatar language, and that there was "a handful of Tatar Christians". I haven't checked to see what the picture is like ten years on...

Conflicting Reports Over Death Of 'Muslim' Beauty Queen, Katya Koren, 19-Year-Old, Emerge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/katya-koren-teen-muslim-beauty-queen-stoned-to-death_n_869245.html

>>"Now, Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, Mustafa Cemiloğl said the detained teenager, who is of Crimean Tatar descent, was pressured by police into accepting the blame for the murder. “The killing was covered in a distorted way, as if it was a religiously motivated murder, by the media around the world," he is quoted as saying. Though initial reports claimed Koren, like her assailants, was Muslim, officials like Qırımoğlu now say she is actually Christian with Russian roots. "The girl was not Muslim. All these [reports] are a provocation and fabricated news."

Thanks, tootsie rawls, for posting that. I've also seen some other conflicting accounts, some denying just about all of the key aspects of the story above. In light of these conflicting reports, I have to revise a previous comment of mine:

"The Muslims who killed this girl, and many who support them, clearly believe that sharia justifies what they did."

I will note that these are just allegations at this stage, and there are counter-allegations.

Hence, since the facts are unclear at this stage, this is not the occasion for speculation about the Islamic factors, whether from a critical perspective or an apologetic one.

It's always risky dealing with a tabloid or semi-tabloid source like Daily Mail. On the one hand, they sometimes report basically correct information that other media outlets might cover up or obfuscate due to (for lack of a better term) political correctness. On the other hand, they are a tabloid and are going for sensationalism with stories like this. The ambiguities, uncertainties, nuances, and conflicting information, as are often encountered in real life, are ignored or removed in order to make a catchy headline.

That said, I don't trust the Tartar group's comments (cited in the HuffPo article) any more than any other partisan source or advocacy group, and I don't trust the authorities' official denials of "religious" motivation any more than I would accept at face value the official denials about Islamic religious motivation behind the 9/11 attacks, Fort Hood massacre, etc. Clearly, more reliable information is needed before one can comment on the story.

The general agreement right now seems to be that christian Katya Koren was killed by one mentally disturbed muslim. So far it is accepted he said she deserved it, for whatever mad reason went through his head.

Of course, we must place the blame where it belongs, and I am certain many will agree it is a relief - many already seems to think so and I only copy this - that it is not a case of a Muslim killed by a group of other Muslims, incensed because she acted against the laws of Islam.

Loonwatch has posted an article on this story. A poster there, NassirH, has commented there on my comments here. Since his comments address issues relevant to the initially-reported Daily Mail story here, such as vigilantism, apostasy, adultery, etc., I will address them here.

NassirH claims that

"Kinana is conflating dress code with apostasy—two completely different things. That speaks volumes about how the weak the Islamophobic case is."

It's not me who is "conflating" these things. I'm pointing out that in Islamic doctrine, violation of some tenets of Islam and Islamic law could be taken as evidence of apostasy, in which case the penalty is death. I would not have even mentioned this if there were not some Muslims who viewed a Muslim woman's violation of Islamic dress codes as a rejection of Islam per se, and thus as apostasy, and thus as possibly warranting the Islamic punishment for apostasy, which is death. Here's an example:

“In contemporary Iran, the penalty for women who do not adhere to the dress code is between thirty-four and seventy-four lashes with a whip. The actual penalties are more varied. Some women get off with a cash fine. “But, just as commonly, women who do not adhere to the dress code are punished with extreme acts of cruelty: Their feet may be put in a gunny sack full of mice and cockroaches, their faces splashed with acid or cut with razor blades.” [12] So terrifying are the penalties that in 1991, a thirteen-year-old girl who was found in violation committed suicide by throwing herself out of a fifth-floor window. On August 15, 1991, the Prosecutor-General, Abolfazl Musavi-Tabrizi, addressing the controversy occasioned by this death, declared that “anyone who rejects the principle of the Hijab [dress code] is an apostate and the punishment for apostasy under Islamic Law is death.” [13]”

p. 83 in Sex and social justice (1999)
By Martha Craven Nussbaum,
Oxford University Press

I earlier cited examples of women threatened with death or killed for not conforming to Islamic dress codes. Here's another example closer to the Ukraine, from Human Rights Watch (via JihadWatch):

"Chechen women have essentially become the target of a quasi-official "virtue" campaign. For several years, the Chechen authorities have discriminated against women who refuse to wear headscarves, prohibiting them from working in the public sector. Female students are also required to wear headscarves in schools and universities. Though these measures have not been codified into law, they are strictly enforced and vocally supported by the republic's leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, who is directly appointed by the Kremlin. This paper describes violence and threats against women to intimidate them into adhering to Islamic dress co des. The documented incidents took place from June through September 2010 in Grozny, Chechnya's capital."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/human-right-watch-chechnyas-enforcement-of-islamic-dress-code-violates-international-covenant-on-civ.html

Also see
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/dont-compel-us-to-resort-to-more-persuasive-measures-veiling-enforced-in-chechen-campaign-of-intimid.html
""Don't compel us to resort to more persuasive measures!!!" Veiling enforced in Chechen campaign of intimidation"

NassirH:

"Firstly, contrary to what Kinana says, vigilantism is prohibited in Islam. In fact, the renowned Maliki jurist al-Qurtubi said: “No one should carry out the hadd punishments without the permission of the ruler. If there is no ruler who rules according to sharee’ah then it is not permissible for the ordinary people to carry out the hadd [corporal] punishments. Whoever does that is sinning, because carrying out the hadd punishments requires examining the matter and requires shari’a knowledge in order to know the conditions of proof.” [1]"

Here is NassirH's link for the above quote:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/8980/Adultery%20punishment

This appears to not be a quote from Qurtubi, but rather is that of the author of that answer at Islam q&a, who then introduces a quote from Qurtubi, which is as follows:

"Al-Qurtubi said:
There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allaah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appointed a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments.
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/245, 246."

Note that this doesn't mention apostasy. It also doesn't mention that Muhammad allowed Muslims to kill blasphemers without obtaining his or anyone's permission beforehand, e.g., see "Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

There is no sharia penalty for vigilantism in the form of killing apostates, blasphemers, etc.

Vigilantism is not prohibited in Islam. NassirH is talking about a very specific kind of punishment. But his own cited article at Islam q&a mentions that Muslims can in fact use vigilante punishments (my emphasis):

"The family of the woman should prevent her from committing immoral actions and should prevent the things that lead to that, such as going out, speaking to non-mahram men, and everything that may enable her to commit evil. If the only way is to detain her and tie her up, then they have the right to do that, so they should detain her in the house."

The author of this at Islam q&a goes on to cite a fatwa by Ibn Taymiyya to back this up.

Clearly, this is vigilante justice. These men would be going to the extent of actually tying a woman up and holding her under house arrest simply for going out and talking to "non-Mahram men"!

And what if, during this attempt, things got violent and the woman struggled to fend off these vigilantes and tried to break free? The situation could easily get out of hand and the woman might even be seriously injured or killed. Some variation of this scenario may have even happened in the above story from the Ukraine.

Islam allows vigilantism through the order to command the right and forbid the wrong, which must be done whether the ruler is there or not. In addition, Muslims are required (in the Quran and Hadith) to wage jihad, and that is a basic tenet of Islam that applies whether there is a ruler (Caliph) or not, and regardless of the school of jurisprudence.

NassirH claims:

"Thus, the claim that there is “no penalty in Islam for killing an apostate” is unequivocally wrong because, clearly, vigilantism is forbidden."

This is a non-sequitur. Something can be forbidden without there necessarily being an actual earthly punishment. Anyways, NassirH would have to provide evidence that there is a penalty for those who kill known apostates, blasphemers, adulterers, etc. He has not done so. To show that I am "unequivocally wrong," he'd have to show pretty extensive evidence. And, as NassirH's own source showed, vigilantism per se isn't forbidden. Instead, his own source says men are obligated to control a woman to the point of tying her up and keeping her under house arrest!

NassirH:

"The legal system of medieval Islamic countries was not how Kinana imagines it to be. There was a judge (or more accurately, a qadi), and evidence and arguments presented from both sides—a famous (or infamous?) case regarding apostasy is that of Khaydar ibn Kuvas Afshin. It wasn’t as if anyone who had slightest the suspicion that someone else was an apostate could go and kill them. Claiming such reveals a profound ignorance of Islamic doctrine and history."

As my response has already shown, it is NassirH who is ignorant, even though he claims to know so much about Islamic law and even my own private thoughts. His desire to defend Islam at all costs clearly outstrips his ability to make a solid case in that defense.

Why can't NassirH present any examples of Muslims who were punished under sharia law, or according to Muhammad, or the Quran, for killing a known apostate?

In the case of someone killed as an apostate, if there were a medieval sharia court case, the "judge" and the "evidence" NassirH mentions would be focussed on the issue of whether the victim was or was not a Muslim. If the person killed had in fact apostasized, there would be no penalty.

As for "slightest suspicion," I never claimed that someone could be killed on the slightest suspicion. The death penalty for apostasy is used when the apostate does something or says something out in the open, in "public", that clearly indicates a rejection of Islam or important Islamic tenets (or worse, seems to promote these things in society).

"Secondly, the truth is that the Crimean Tatars who killed the girl should have been following the laws of Ukraine; according to Islamic law, “the rulings of non-Muslims should be accepted as binding by Muslims whenever the latter reside in non-Muslim territory.” In fact, “Abu Hanifa [the founder of the Hanafi madhab, the dominant school amongst Muslims in Crimea] considered acts by Muslims in non-Muslim territory which violated the latter’s laws as banditry and theft.” [2] I suppose the two aforementioned points lay waste to Spencer’s “stealth jihad” conspiracy, as well as Kinana’s claim that the murderers “have an Islamic legal basis to stand on.”"

I don't see how any of what NassirH says about this "lays waste" to anything other than his own credibility. This doesn't bear on the Stealth Jihad case made by Robert. And as to the present case, Muslims are only required to follow un-Islamic rules and rulers, temporarily, if they are absolutely forced to do so and cannot oppose it at the time. When they are able to do so, Muslims are expected to obey Islamic rules, and un-Islamic rules and rulers should not be obeyed (my emphasis):

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 251:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258:
Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (See Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 178:
Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya: We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet and by which Allah may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah."

"Thirdly, Kinana’s essentialist arguments against Islam are proving Edward Said correct. Kinana simply cherry-picks evidence, ignoring anything to the contrary including religiously sanctioned punishments for apostasy in Christianity and Judaism. Not all Muslims agreed that death should always be the punishment for apostasy."

I don't think NassirH understands what essentialism is.

I never claimed that all Muslims are agreed that the penalty for apostasy is death. Polls suggest that significant percentages of Muslims do believe that apostates should be killed, however (e.g., the majority in Nigeria, large majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan; a large minority in Indonesia, according to PEW). This poses a significant risk. The mainstream traditional view is that the penalty for the sane adult male who publicly apostatizes and refuses to return to Islam is death. The views on killing versus other types of sever punishments to sane adult female public apostates who refuse to revert are mixed.

I don't see how religiously-based punishments in Christianity and Judaism have anything to do with the case in question, much less constitute anything "contrary" that would be "ignored" through "cherry picking". Jews and Christians today don't practice the killing of apostates, and there are not any widespread attitudes among them that they should do so. There is no evidence that the young woman in this case was killed for violating any Christian or Jewish tenets. The only reason we're discussing this at all was because of the initial claim, stated by not only the Daily Mail but also other media sources, that the woman was a Muslim who was killed by other Muslims (by "stoning," no less) for violating sharia.

NassirH:

"For example, Ibn Taymiyya “was generally in favour of a discretionary punishment.”

Ibn Taymiyya distinguished between different kinds of apostates and said that those who "wage war" against Islam, Allah, and Muhammad must be put to death. According to Ibn Taymiyya--and this is documented in another "fatwa" at Islam q&a*--"waging war" can mean fighting with words. Thus, if an apostate opposes Islam in some way and makes this public, he can be killed. (The same thing applies for the blasphemer). Ibn Taymiyya also said, BTW, that women and children POWs could be killed if they "fought with words" against Islam.

*See http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/14231

As to whether there is a hadd or tazir, that's no way out of it for NassirH because the tazir for an apostate could also be death, depending on the opinion of the judge or ruler and the type of offense.

NassirH:

"The eight century jurist Sufiyan ibn Sa’id al-Thawri “held the view that an apostate ought never to be killed but constantly invited back to Islam.” [3]

What if the apostate also commits blasphemy or spreads corruption on earth (e.g., by promoting widespread apostasy)?

Anyways, being constantly invited back to Islam constitutes an ongoing harassment that in itself is a kind of punishment. Who would want to be endlessly hassled by Muslims for the rest of their life? It's also an especially dangerous view, because, whereas some Muslims might agree with this less-than-death punishment, others might see that the person is in fact an apostate and then decide to take other vigilante action such as violence or killing. Simply accusing someone of apostasy from Islam can constitute a death threat, as was actually ruled by an Italian court in recent years.

NassirH

"The Hanafi madhab—the dominant madhab in Crimea—held that women shouldn’t be killed for apostasy."

There's no evidence that the perpetrators of this crime were following Hanafi fiqh in particular, and it is rather naive and simplistic to suggest that this would be a significant factor. Moreover, even if they were following a particular school, which seems highly unlikely, there is no penalty for killing an apostate. If it was a Muslim who killed the young woman over a perceived apostasy, I doubt that he was following the Hanafi fiqh. More likely, had the killer been a Muslim killing someone over a perceived apostasy, he would be following the Islamic cultural attitude of extreme anger toward apostasy and the policy of punishing it severely, and this is supported by the Quran and Hadith, which together give the death penalty for apostasy and which give no protections for apostates. Muslims are safe, protected; but apostates explicitly are not.

NassirH:

"Furthermore, there are plenty of Muslims who think the death penalty for apostasy should be abolished."

True, but it's not relevant here.

NassirH:

"The death penalty for apostasy is law in only a minority of majority Muslim countries,"

By my count, at least a dozen Islamic countries have the death penalty for apostasy. Many others have other penalties for apostasy. Besides, apostasy is something that is policed by the Muslim communities. Even where there are only a small percentage of Muslims who agree with the death penalty for apostasy, they constitute a significant threat and risk to those who would like to leave Islam and do so publicly, freely, and honestly.

NassirH:

"and was abolished in both the Mughal Empire under Akbar and the Ottoman Empire under the Tanzimat reforms. [4]"

What Dan Brown, NassirH's source here, actually says is that Akbar abolished the jizya, not the apostasy death penalty. Brown says Akbar "set aside" (which does not mean total and permanent, as would be implied by "abolish") the death penalty for apostasy, but that Akbar's changes didn't last (and the jizya was later reinstated).

As for the Tanzimat reforms, I didn't see Brown comment that these involved abolishing the death penalty for apostasy. However, the Tanzimat reforms were, in my view, largely a rhetorical exercise in appeasing the West, which was putting pressure on the Ottoman Empire to reform. It probably cannot be said that the classical sharia death penalty punishment for apostasy was "abolished" until much later when Ataturk ended the Caliphate.

NassirH will continue to try to find fault in Islam critics (in this case me, an anonymous commenter on a website) while believing in Jinn, and accepting the genocides and hatred in the Quran, and having no criticisms whatsoever of the Quran and Muhammad. That gives you some idea of NassirH's priorities. We criticize rape and killing and violations of human rights, whereas NassirH and the Loonwatch crew are focused not on criticizing any of those things but instead on us for criticizing those things! In short, they are loons.