Of course, she now denies saying or meaning it. From the Copenhagen Post, with thanks to Filtrat:
No matter what former Social Democratic city councilwoman Fatima Shah really believes about the stoning of adulterous women under sharia law, the damage is done. Immigration consultant and author Fahmy Almajid says last week’s scandal over Fatima Shah following a feature article in daily newspaper BT under the headline “She Supports Stoning” is yet another setback for integration of Muslims in Denmark.
Yes, but it is strange (but not surprising) that the article seems to be placing responsibility on those who publicized her remarks, not on her remarks themselves.
“This scandal has only deepened the divide, led to more hate and more generalisations. It’s given more ammunition to the popular perception that all Muslims believe women should be stoned for adultery – even Muslims who (like Fatima Shah) are doctors, politicians and well-integrated immigrants. It’s damaging to Danes and Muslims. In fact, it doesn’t even matter if Fatima Shah resigns from politics and retracts her original remarks. The damage is done,” said Fahmy Almajid.
It doesn’t matter if all Muslims don’t believe adulterers should be stoned. If some do, they constitute a segment of Danish society that does not accept Danish law. And that must be faced, generalizations aside.
Last week’s interview in B.T. was based on an interview with Fatima Shah conducted by outspoken pundit and Social Democrat Mohammad Rafiq. Speaking with daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten today, Fahmy Almajid said Fatima Shah herself bore much of the blame for the brouhaha.
“Maybe she was misquoted, but she should have found out beforehand what the point of this interview with Mohammad Rafiq really was, and she should have been more careful. In fact, I believe that any politician who isn’t media-trained should be extremely cautious in making any kind of statement to the press,” said Almajid.
Almajid said the debate in Denmark over Islamic sharia law was largely irrelevant to begin with.
“No one in this country is in any position to make statements about sharia law, because we have no authorities in the area. There’s not one properly trained imam. Sharia is really only a question of interpretation. Sharia under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan meant that women couldn’t speak out loud or laugh. In Saudi Arabia, they can laugh but they can’t drive. And in Syria, they can more or less do as they please. Interpreting sharia law literally is just like Danes taking the Old Testament literally,” said Almajid.
Classic dodge. No one is taking the OT literally in all its particulars. Anywhere. But plenty of people take Sharia literally. Almajid focuses on minute areas of disagreement between the Taliban and the Saudis, fails to mention that Syria is not a Sharia state, and in no way informs his hearers that Sharia is actually for the most part quite fixed and readily identifiable in content.