The advocates of stoning can and do claim that they are simply implementing Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, maintained that the punishment of stoning for adultery (this story doesn’t specify the method of punishment, but the outcome of the punishment is the same in any case) was originally in the Qur’an:
‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)
“Allah’s Apostle” is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:
The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 829)
Even the monkeys practiced stoning, according to another hadith:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. (Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 188)
Muhammad’s example is, of course, normative for Islamic behavior, since “verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much” (Qur’an 33:21).
“Couple stoned to death in Loralai village,” by Saleem Shahid for Dawn, February 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):
QUETTA: A man and a woman were stoned to death in a village in Loralai district on Sunday after a cleric issued a fatwa against them, sources said.
A Levies Force official, Abdul Latif Jogezai, said the incident took place in Manzkai village early in the morning. “The people of the village stoned to death the man and the woman who were not married to each other. Rather, they were married to other people,” he said. He said the two were killed on suspicion of having illicit relations. No funeral prayers were offered for them.
The slain man, Daraz Khan, was buried in Katoti area and the woman in her village.
After hearing about the incident, personnel of the Levies Force reached Manzkai village and arrested the cleric who had issued the fatwa and six of the men who stoned the couple to death, Mr Jogezai said.
He said a case had been registered against the people of the village. Most of the residents fled from the village to avoid arrest, he added.
Stephen Poole says
… That could be my ex-wife under there … … Although I do not approve of what she did, I don’t approve of that either … According to my belief, one day she might have to answer to Jehovah God for her adultery … ‘Til then, she is free to Live ’til she dies … Just sayin’ … Take care folks … SP OX
Doreva says
John 8:7,11 KJV
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Conny Vollweiter says
Insanity…
Jay Boo says
VAMPIRE of the VANITIES
If Islam were actually a religion it could survive without constant bloodshed.
Whenever infidels are not conveniently nearby it cannibalizes from within.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Seriously – was it really necessary to insult monkeys by comparing them to Islam???
CGW says
I was thinking that same thing. After all, we all know that the majority of monkeys are happily married (by imams) and would not be inclined to “illegal sexual intercourse”. To compare them to degenerate muslims is just so unfair.
Doreva says
Some non religious Pc people also suggest that because monkeys do it (same sex behaviour eg ) that therefore we humans ought to condone it…but monkeys sometimes eat their young too…so now mullahs say we are the same as monkeys? They should speak for themselves only, of course.
Champ says
Question: “What was Jesus writing in the dirt when the Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery?”
Answer: The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 8:1-11. Briefly, the story involves the scribes and Pharisees who, in their continuing efforts to trick Jesus into saying something they could hold against Him, brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They reminded Him that the Mosaic Law demanded her to be stoned to death. “But what do you say?”, they asked Him. At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt. When He straightened up, He said, “”If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left.
More here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-writing-dirt.html
Jay Boo says
Behold beyond the dreary darkness there is light
the Star of Bethlehem
Champ says
Yes, what a wonderful thought, Jay Boo! …thank you 🙂
Jay Boo says
The Pyramids of Egypt were built on a solid foundation to reach a high pinnacle.
Islam obviously has nothing to do with The Pyramids of Egypt.
Islam It has no foundation at all
Islam was built on a bottomless honor-killing pit
Islam has no honor to kill
There is no limit to how low its depravity will sink.
Bettina says
Isn’t that the truth, JB!
Doreva says
The Islamists will tear down the pyramids of Egypt …. They are unislamic don’t you know?
Jay Boo says
MUSLIMS WAKE UP
Exodus from the chains of Medina
Desert spirits spoke in twisted verse, a dance of words to recite, to recite.
Medina’s false prophet this rehearsed in a cave near Mecca veiled by night.
But the angel Gabriel saw his descent, and said “Pawn of Satan turn, repent, repent.”
But, sharia’s verse planted its infected creed fertilized by this false prophet’s made-up dream.
A vain attempt to partner with God almighty was dredged up from the lowest pit of his vanity.
Bloodied hands are now washed before prayers that incite
as hate speech is masked as devotion to recite, to recite.
Along Medina’s “fastest growing” path straight to hell
“Nine Eleven” admirers grovel beneath Satan’s will.
Jihadists then bow not to God but to Islam’s unholy weapon,
as false humility makes its pilgrimage to Satan’s deception.
True infidels, you use God’s name as a deadly curse.
Blasphemy crawls from your SERPENT’S stockpile of vile, veiled verse.
Salah says
“Even the monkeys practiced stoning”
This story, and many, many others, are some of the clearest examples of just how irrational and silly the Islamic traditions can be.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/09/stoned-by-monkeys.html
revg says
Isn’t it odd how islam compares Jews to apes, yet uses monkeys to prove that stoning is a valid punishment? Moe really had a thing for lesser primates didn’t he? I’m just saying…
Philip says
How many more needs to be murdered for entertainment before world does something about this ‘religion’?
bobm says
@ Jay Boo… the Lord showed me a vision of a bearded man down deep in darkness; looking up as he opened his large mouth from which poured forth a host of beetle like insects . These reminded me of scarabs.. (arabs?)..interesting. This was clearly a vision of the spirit of islam in darkness. In due time the Lord will destroy this pestilence.
Defcon 4 says
“He said the two were killed on suspicion of having illicit relations.”
Suspicion? Obviously that’s good enough grounds to execute two people in
islam0nazi jurisprudence.
Adam Resla says
What a fucking fraud, this R. Spencer! At the top of the post, he quotes some words he says come from the Qur’an, but then he cites the words as coming from Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816. This guy is so fucking stupid and a hate mongering demon. Bukhari is not a chapter of the Qur’an at all. He is reading from a historical account that may or may not be accurate. Almost everything this guy says is hate-filled agenda. Investigate him, and you’ll see. Also, check out the site: http://spencerwatch.com/ Spencer is an unprincipled, reckless hack, and doesn’t know anything about Islam. He only reads one or two verses here and there, takes them out of context (historical and literary) and then claims he is an expert on the subject. I am curious what he makes of Matthew 10:34 (JV): “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” So…does that mean Christianity is a religion of terrorists? The word “sword” appears in the KJV Bible 384 times and a total of zero times in the Qur’an. And here we have a verse where Jesus himself proclaims his blood-thirst. If it were in the Qur’an, Spencer would have used it as the top quote of every page of his blog!
The bottom line is, he projects the actions of individuals onto the collective and doesn’t understand the difference between religious practice and cultural practice. Yes, there are some Muslim nations that have cultural practices that contradict Islamic religious teachings, but they do not represent Islam. Spencer conflates the two. He also takes the most extreme opinions out there about Islam and then presents them as normative or mainstream.
Don’t be fooled by this idiot. Apply critical reasoning and make your one judgments.
neluroman says
Really!! The Qur’an clearly specifies, ” I (Muhammad) came in the shadow of sword. I was made successful by sword” . In Bible the word sword has an allegoric meaning, that is if we analyse what Jesus did. He never used a sword during his ministry. In fact he stopped Peter to use one on Jew soldiers who had come to arrest him. Completely different stay the things in the case of Muhammad. He took the word, sword, ” ad literram” by personally killing people (see Banu Quyraza fate), or by participating in wars. He also condoned the killing of people who dared to criticize him by their writings. Moreover, Bible is supposed to be inspired by God but not his exclusive words. So, if we find something weird in Bible we can put it on the fallibility of human nature. In Qur’an we have not this liberty because Qur’an is the personal statement of God. The problem is that God is infallible, he cannot make mistakes. So, if we find mistakes or errors in Qur’an, then the book cannot be from God. Also it is more than clearly that God would not choose a murderer, or to put it middle, a warrior to be the human being to release his message. That is the difference between the word “sword” in Bible if compared to the same word in Qur’an. Don’t tell me that you don’t see the difference.
ijaz says
@neluroman: Can you give reference to the verse in Quran as you mentioned “I (Muhammad) came in the shadow of sword. I was made successful by sword”. If not then your whole argument is meaningless.
voegelinian says
Adam Resla has some problems with Basic Reading Comprehension 101. In fact, Spencer did not claim that quote comes from the Koran; he explicitly says that Umar claimed that stoning as punishment for adultery comes from the Koran — and to demonstrate this, Spencer quotes from Bukhari concerning Umar’s claim:
The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, maintained that the punishment of stoning for adultery (this story doesn’t specify the method of punishment, but the outcome of the punishment is the same in any case) was originally in the Qur’an…
Buraq says
@ Adam Resla
You’re a wire-wigged, red-nosed, baggy-trousered clown! The rightly-guided Robert Spencer has quoted from Islamic sources that are considered as ‘Sahih’ in Islam. That is, authentic or original.
If you don’t accept them as such, you’re out on a limb on that one.
As for the word ‘sword’ not appearing in Al Qur’an, you’re talking through your butt, boy! And keep a civil tongue in your head when talking to your intellectual and moral superiors.
Now, when you’re scraping away the leaves to the entrance of your cave this evening, think about why it is that Islam has made you a bigoted idiot with no ability to see the truth. Clown!
Bazzoh says
I was led to understand that all the baggy trousered clowns were of the Islamic persuasion and the reason ”apparently” is that Islam teaches that the most revered Mullah of all time will be known and recognised because he will born of a man. That is what the baggy trousers are for. ”honest” You couldn’t make it up!
No Fear says
Did Spencer take the stones out of context? You know the ones I mean…..the stones used to kill the woman.
Mohammed was a gangster and thief and murderer. He knew how to build a totally compliant support crew of henchmen who would do whatever he told them to do, including murder.
Not much has changed in the last 1400 years.
The beauty of the web is that the Islamic texts are open for ALL to read. I can read how Mohammed killed jews, encouraged his henchmen to rape wives of captured non-muslims, married a child, raided trading caravans.
OngeyK says
Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816. Is it not from the Hadith? Perhaps you need to get your own facts right before “casting the first stone”
CGW says
I posted this on another thread but I’ll reproduce it here for Reza, er . . . I mean “Adam Resla”:
Hmmmm, another “drive-by” musloid troll.
You really have no idea where you are, do you, “Adam Resla” (aka Reza Aslan?). JW comments section and the majority of its readers are mostly comprised of a hard-core cadre of regulars who have studied islam in depth for years. Most of us have read islamic scriptures in depth, and have conducted our own independent research over an extended period of time. Among us are native Arabic speakers and ex-muslims, just for that added measure of authenticity. We are not a bunch of greenhorns who can be swayed by a laughably amateurish tu quoque argument, as if *any* negative implication of another religion, such as Christianity, could somehow excuse or lessen the evil of a perverted ideology like islam. You just outed yourself as a neophyte in the argumentation arena, ineptly making use of a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are the de rigeur choice of most muslims because they lack the capacity for reasoned debate and critical thinking. So don’t feel bad, you’re just one of many.
Let me guess – you’ve read none of Spencer’s books and are really clueless with regard to his scholarship. It’s patently obvious from your comment, because even those who disagree with Spencer’s viewpoints cannot fault his meticulous research, analysis and documentation. An IMAM who demanded to debate Spencer and then lost pitifully to him in a debate about what islamic scriptures actually say whined and complained afterward that the debate wasn’t fair because Spencer was actually a SCHOLAR and an EXPERT on islam! Isn’t it interesting that all the jihadis agree with Spencer’s interpretaions of islamic doctrine?
Please point out just one, single, solitary “hateful” or “dishonest” quote from Robert Spencer. The only hateful words ever written or pronounced by him were direct quotes from the original islamic scriptures. To report on hate, to describe it, to illustrate its influence and effects brilliantly, is the furthest thing possible from “hateful” and is the epitome of honesty.
Most of us have given up responding to trolls like you because, after awhile, it became so much like “shooting fish in a barrel” that it became boring. For my fellow JW regulars, especially those like myself who have been here for THIRTEEN YEARS and have been studying islam for at least that long or longer, it does help to provide some comic relief in the face of the horrendous, despicable evil posed by islam.
So thanks for the laugh.
I’ll leave you to the others.
Henry says
Might you be Reza Aslan?
Wellington says
Quite a little hissy-fit you had there, Adam Resla. Be advised, though, that a hissy-fit, replete with insults, does not constitute an argument. Oh, and meanwhile, just since 9/11 there have been over 22,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide and this doesn’t take into account all the tens of thousands that were foiled by intelligence and security agencies throughout the world during this same time period. And take a look at the over fifty Islamic nations out there. Most are crapholes (and in none does true liberty exist). Can’t keep blaming this on colonialism and other causes, though Islam is nauseating at playing the victim card.
Islam is wretched, the only major religion that is. It was founded by a bloody psychopath who, conveniently, never had a single sexual desire denied him by that most bogus of deities, Allah. It is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind. It is a burden to all the world in a way nothing else is. Now get lost, loser.
mariam rove says
Islamic hissy – fit. When no argument resort to name calling. M
mariam rove says
you are either smoking hashish or you are on cloud 9. You are also a typical muslim when have no argument resort to name calling. Robert’s accuracy on Islam in unmatched and he has no hate speech in him. When was the last time you saw an article he posted here or any where else inciting hate against muslims. He is talking about Islam and bull shit that there are cultural practices as apposed to Islamic practices is all it is bull shit. Stealth Jihadists like you who trying to portray Islam as a religion pf peace are being exposed here. I know it because I was born and raised a muslim. M
Bazzoh says
you’r right Adam Islam is a wonderful religion which has never done anybody any harm and has only ever brought peace love and happiness. why don’t we see it. I suppose one reason might be
‘Were not all as stupid as you!
Foolster says
Hahahahaha
“He only reads one or two verses here and there, takes them out of context (historical and literary) and then claims he is an expert on the subject. ”
“I am curious what he makes of Matthew 10:34 (JV): “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” So…does that mean Christianity is a religion of terrorists? ”
HYP. OH. CRIT. (take 3x logic damage)
fair_dinkum says
“He said a case had been registered against the people of the village. Most of the residents fled from the village to avoid arrest, he added.”
what? they gossiped and then fled?
these are very ill people.
Champ says
Robert, thank you for continuing to bring us the truth about islam and company!
Sante DeFinis says
Such a peacefull religion…
exsgtbrown says
He only reads one or two verses here and there, takes them out of context (historical and literary) and then claims he is an expert on the subject. I am curious what he makes of Matthew 10:34 (JV):
Unfortunately, the truth is just the opposite. This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur’an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes “years of study” to fully understand the meaning of certain passages. Neophytes are encouraged to seek the “counseling” of a Muslim scholar or cleric to “help them” interpret what they read.
It isn’t the verses of violence that are rare; it is the ones of peace and tolerance (which were narrated earlier in Muhammad’s life and superseded by later ones). Neither is the “historical context” of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in most cases. There is nothing overall that limits the targeting of unbelievers to a specific place and time.
One would think that a perfect book from a perfect god would be easy to understand, but in the Qur’an, constructs and topics often come from out of nowhere and merge randomly in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. Few Quran’s are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original “revelation.”
This is a problem when it comes to many of the verse that dictate violence. Although they can often be mitigated with non-intuitive references to entirely separate passages, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework. It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave the brutally sensitive topic of killing open to human interpretation.
With external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur’anic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as “historical context.” They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as present-day orders.
But “historical context” cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur’an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).
Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.
This game of context is, in fact, one of the most popular and disingenuous in which Muslims are likely to engage. Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there – such as in the case of the bellicose 9th Sura of the Qur’an, which calls for the subjugation and death of unbelievers. They ignore context when it proves inconvenient. An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered up as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad’s later imposition of the jizya and the sword).
Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur’an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.
Veracious_one says
What a fucking fraud, this R. Spencer! At the top of the post, he quotes some words he says come from the Qur’an, but then he cites the words as coming from Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816.
And the caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, maintained that the punishment of stoning for adultery (this story doesn’t specify the method of punishment, but the outcome of the punishment is the same in any case) was originally in the Qur’an:
‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)
.
Champ says
“What a fucking fraud, this R. Spencer!”
No, muhammad (perdition be upon him) was a thug and a fraud …
and allah is NOT the God of the Bible:
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html
Eels says
Does Adam Resla = Reza Aslan?
Defcon 4 says
Or maybe an admirer of Mr. Aslan, like his catamite boy-toy Lean.
No Fear says
Since the Quran is mainly concerned with what happens to NON-muslims then non-muslims have EVERY RIGHT to interpret the Quran.
Asking an Imam what the Quran means has limited use for a non-muslim.
German Jews would not get a straight answer from a Nazi as to the “true meaning” of Mein Kampf. They should use their own brains!
GHOUS says
919849490600
Ola Arabasz says
Religion of peace 😀
CGW says
OT:
Enjoy, friends!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d61_1392680839
CGW says
Another OT
Interesting article by Mark Durie:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/bloga.cfm/blog_id/51959/Islams-Second-Crisis-The-troubles-to-come
London Jim says
‘Adam Resla’ , realize that you are one myoptic chrysalis. Get help to free yourself from that sarcophogas.
lou hodges says
“We have no respectworthy evidence that the human being has morals.” Mark Twain
William Pearl says
where is highly unlike button…
Rose B says
So the Imam said that Muslims should practice the monkey religion…and it was done!
rozaz dlima says
You may encounter muslims with weird behavior & show lack of respect to other homosapiens of different belief system. These muslims can be categorized as low-order thinking muslims with symptom of cognitive dissonance. There are abundance of them on earth…just like bubbles floating in oceans. It’s no point having any socratic discussion with them ‘coz of the weak cognitive power to rationalize or justify their ideas. There is nothing wrong with Islam but there’s something wrong with the Muslims. Wise Man says “Not All Muslims are Mukmin But All Mukmin are Muslims”. It’s much more enriching & lively to have a chit-chat with Mukmin rather than with Muslims.
Defcon 4 says
“There is nothing wrong with Islam.” Hahahahahaha. Maybe it would be better to try and find out what’s right w/islam.
munmun says
Pakistan was part of India and most of the pakistanis are descendants of ex Hindus. So it’s wrong to say stoning belongs to their culture as it was never so. It belongs to their religion.
duh_swami says
Rajam is a measurement of evil. It is not the only evil favored by Allah
but it is right up there in the top five or so. ‘Resist not evil’, does not apply here, this kind of evil should be, and must be resisted. If you don’t resist it now, you will resist it in the future.
Elise says
The book of Allah’s lies is truly evil. First of all, the Jews would never go to Allah’s apostle to report adultery. What is the definition of illegal intercourse? I suppose the man should have said, she was his sex slave and their lives would have been saved. Telling lies is the saving grace from death. This is the reason that every Muslim I know from Indonesia to Iran, from strict to moderate can rarely tell the truth. I guess they believe that their God does not know they are liars. It appears that stealing millions of aid dollars from the poor and buying houses and cars in halal, but making love with someone you love is cause for death by stoning. Perhaps Allah is the Devil in disguise.
mortimer says
Where did the verse of stoning go? How did Allah fail to protect it? What? Allah lost verses? And Omar knew best…better than Allah who lost a verse or many! Were the verses so embarrassing that the caliphs destroyed them?
And was Omar a prophet? It seems he considered himself as much a prophet as Mohammed! He changed rules set by Mohammed and by Abu Bakr. So he claimed that the verse was in the Koran, though it wasn’t in the Koran.
Today, Sharia law says the verse isn’t in the Koran, but is still in effect even though Allah lost it, but that no one can remove a verse from the Koran because Allah protects it. Confused?
And will they be stoning apes for adultery as well? Mohammed was passing by a stoning of adulterous monkeys and joined in! Hope they will consider that.
Galvin Fox says
Lee Rigby’s killers didn’t even get treated this bad. Maybe if they had only committed adultery instead…
Stephen Poole says
… The only comment on this thread that makes zero sense is from “Adam Resla” … Perhaps he should remember that a caterpillar turns into a total !! liquid mass, while morphing/turning into his chrysalis … Somehow, this/that seems profound … SP OX …
dumbledoresarmy says
They were killed **on suspicion**.
It is perfectly probable that they had done nothing at all. (Even if they had, they should not have been stoned to death for it).
Sentenced to death – exactly like so many, many women and girls who are “Honor” murdered, and so many people who have been killed in Pakistan on the mere accusation of “Blasphemy!!!” – in the sovereign court of Village Gossip.
I wonder who had a grudge against her? against him?
Islam is a death cult – a human sacrifice system – and on this particular occasion these two people were selected as the victims du jour. (When there are dhimmis about, they form the preferred target – they can always be screechingly accused of having “broken the dhimma” ).
RodSerling says
Adam Resla (AR) writes:
AR: “What a fucking fraud, this R. Spencer! At the top of the post, he quotes some words he says come from the Qur’an, but then he cites the words as coming from Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816.”
Adam, when you intend to accuse someone of being a fraud, first read carefully, get your facts straight, and don’t lie, okay? (It would also be helpful to take a deep breath first, to prevent hyperventilation). As others have pointed out, and as Robert stated quite clearly, the punishment is in the Hadith, and he cited Umar (the second rightly-guided caliph, and one of Muhammad’s closest companions) as one who said the verses of stoning for adultery were originally in the Qur’an. Moreover, there are numerous other hadiths, regarded as authentic by Muslim scholars, to support the Islamic legal punishment of stoning to death for adultery. As we can see from this story and too many others like it, stoning adulterers to death is still practiced today by some Muslims. Significant percentages of Muslims support this punishment (e.g., see p 221 of this Pew report).
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2010/12/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Muslim-Topline.pdf
AR: “This guy is so fucking stupid and a hate mongering demon.”
Second piece of advice: When you are accusing someone of being a hatemonger, don’t base the claim on false premises (see above), and don’t engage in hate-mongering yourself, as you do in using the word “demon.” If you think Robert Spencer is a “demon,” then you clearly need psychological or psychiatric help–and I’m not kidding.
Third piece of advice: When you accuse someone of being stupid, you are by implication obligated to show that you have more knowledge and understanding of the subject matter at hand, to show where the accused went wrong. You haven’t done so. You have shown practically no knowledge of the subject matter, and appear to be parroting some dubious apologetic and polemical lines. If you take seriously what websites like Loonwatch and Spencerwatch have to say about Islam, jihad, sharia, and Robert Spencer (and numerous other Islam critics, all of whom are classed as “loons”), you have only yourself to blame.
AR: “Bukhari is not a chapter of the Qur’an at all. He is reading from a historical account that may or may not be accurate.”
Robert quite clearly identified that he was quoting hadiths, in reference to Bukhari.
As for the historical accuracy, the relevant practical question in relation to the above story, about an actual stoning, is whether the Muslims in question think those texts, and hence the laws and customs upon which they are based, are historically valid, i.e., that Muhammad prescribed the punishment. Clearly, lots of Muslims today seem to think the stoning hadiths are valid, or at least they support them indirectly by taking this law as valid.
AR: “Almost everything this guy says is hate-filled agenda. Investigate him, and you’ll see. Also, check out the site: http://spencerwatch.com/ “
Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that what Robert says constitutes a “hate-filled agenda.” You are simply making an empty accusation. Many of us here are familiar with “Spencerwatch” and “Loonwatch.” I’ve read probably most of what they claim about Robert. From what I’ve seen, those sites can’t refute him (or other Islam critics like Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al.) on any significant substantive point pertaining to Islam, so they have to make stuff up or focus on irrelevancies (e.g., they are preoccupied with insulting the physical appearance of Islam critics, etc.). Spencerwatch and Loonwatch appear to be a bunch of juveniles led by Muslim apologists who are for the most part attacking the good guys. They are attacking those critics of Islam (esp. of jihad, sharia, and Islamic supremacism) who, at great risk to themselves, speak out in defense of human rights, freedom, and equality. That means the net result of Loonwatch’s and Spencerwatch’s endeavors, however significant or insignificant, is against human rights, freedom, and equality.
AR: “Spencer is an unprincipled, reckless hack, and doesn’t know anything about Islam.”
Again, I know this is false because I’ve done a lot of research on Islam myself over the past 9 years, and I am quite familiar with Robert’s work. What Spencer says checks out. If he occasionally makes an error in the day-to-day postings, which does happen sometimes in blogging based on news reports, he corrects them. In fact, such errors, when they occur, often result from errors in initial news reports, which are then corrected later.
I will gladly demonstrate some significant errors and problems with Loonwatch articles, if you would challenge me to do so.
AR: “He only reads one or two verses here and there, takes them out of context (historical and literary) and then claims he is an expert on the subject.”
Not true. He’s read the Qur’an in context, including in light of the context provided by Hadith, Sira, Asbab al-Nuzul, and the work of the early Muslim historians such as Tabari. He’s also read what other scholars in modern times say about the context. He’s read multiple tafsirs of the Qur’an. He’s written a tafsir of the Qur’an himself (The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran; and Blogging the Qur’an on this site), based on classical and mainstream Muslim scholars’ understandings, and Muslims’ applications, of the text, in the real world.
AR: “I am curious what he makes of Matthew 10:34”
You are curious? If you are curious, then why didn’t you read what he’s written about this verse? He’s written about it many times online, in relation to the kind of polemic you are using, so all you had to do was search it.
AR: ““Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” So…does that mean Christianity is a religion of terrorists?”
First of all, see above, do the search: Robert, and Christians generally, don’t interpret that verse as referring to a literal sword or as advocating using swords against civilians. I’m not a Christian, and to me it seems pretty obvious that the passage refers to a metaphorical sword of division, referring to the social divisions and conflicts that can arise between people with different beliefs. I’m not arguing in favour of such conflict, of course. I’m not going to engage in apologetics here, and there are Christians here who know much more about this passage than I do. But there is no developed doctrine of warfare or violence based on that verse. There is no history of implementation of violent policies based on that verse. Contrast that with verses of the Qur’an, such as 9:5, 9:29, 9:73-74, 9:123, which directly and explicitly command Muslims to fight, to kill, to deal harshly with the non-Muslims, etc. In Islamic law, there is a developed, detailed doctrine, which was implemented historically, based on these verses, directing Muslims to attack and subdue polytheists, People of the Book (primarily, Christians and Jews), hypocrites and apostates, and non-Muslims generally who did not convert to Islam. The implementation of these jihad policies has resulted in tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of deaths of non-Muslims historically, not to mention comparable numbers of rapes, people enslaved, etc. that are part of jihad warfare and the spread and imposition of Islamic rules. This is to say nothing of the millions of deaths in modern times due to jihad against non-Muslims and due to internal religiously-based conflicts (e.g., between Shia and Sunnis). If there is a theological “sword of division” resulting in violence, it is the division Muslims made between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, between the Muslims and non-Muslims, and the jihad imperative for the former to conquer the latter “until all religion is for Allah” (Q 2:193, 8:39), so that Islam is dominant, victorious over all religions, though the disbelievers dislike it (Q 9:32-33, 48:28, 61:9). As stated in the Sira, the early Muslims under Muhammad pledged to “wage war against all mankind.” As stated in the Hadith, and as enshrined in Islamic law, the jihad will continue until Judgement Day.
Christianity is not a religion of terrorists unless there are lots of Christian terrorists who take such scripture to mean they should attack and kill civilians in order to advance their cause. The fact is, most of the terrorism we see throughout the world today, especially terrorism involving deaths, is jihadist terrorism, terrorism conducted by people who are convinced that they are acting on the basis of and in accordance with Islam. Moreover, there is significant support for terrorist groups among Muslims today, with significant percentages supporting (i.e., at least agreeing with) at least one Islamic terrorist group (e.g., al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, etc.).
Islam is a religion of terror insofar as terrorism is glorified in the Qur’an (8:60 and others), Hadith (“I have been made victorious with terror”–Muhammad), and Sira; and it is enshrined in Islamic law and practiced or supported by large numbers of Muslims. All these conditions are met, in reality. Hence, there is a basis for saying that Islam is a religion of terror.
AR: “The word “sword” appears in the KJV Bible 384 times and a total of zero times in the Qur’an.”
This kind of apologetic is laughable. The Qur’an doesn’t have the word “sword,” therefore what? The Qur’an has numerous verses ordering Muslims to kill people. “Strike them at/above their necks” (8:12, 47:4), “Fight them, Allah will punish them at your hands” (9:14).
see q-t-l:
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qtl#%289:14:1%29
You think the verses ordering killing, in the context of the 7th century or thereabouts, were meant to exclude the possibility of using a sword to do the killing? The Hadith and Sira are quite graphic, showing that Muslims under Muhammad’s command were running around killing people with swords and other weapons. Muhammad himself had a sword collection and had names for each of his swords, according to the Hadith and Sira. You think the Qur’an means “Kill them”, but don’t use a sword? Why do you think Muslim scholars called verses such as 9:5 and 9:29 “sword verses”? Verse 9:5 is celebrated, glorified, by Muslims, as “The Verse of the Sword”. In fact, the Qur’an has all the (iron-based metal) weapons and implements included categorically, in 57:25, and indeed all methods and means, according to 8:60 and 9:5. Moreover, a classic method of killing in jihad, and in imposing the death penalty for some crimes under sharia, is by beheading, with a sword or blade. That is why jihadists as well as those who implement sharia today in some places actually use a sword or blade to do the beheading. A sword or blade is also required to do halal butchery, to slit the throat of the animal. Swords and blades have many ceremonial and symbolic uses in Islam today, many of which signify some sort of violent acts.
In other words, exactly how clueless are you, to think we are so clueless, as to be taken or swayed by this silly claim about the word sword not appearing in the Qur’an?
Yes, there are violent verses in the OT. Christians and Jews in significant numbers do not act on those verses today.
AR: “And here we have a verse where Jesus himself proclaims his blood-thirst.”
Again, how poor in reading comprehension does one have to be to not see that the “sword” in that passage from Matthew was referring to social division? (As poor in this respect as Reza Aslan, perhaps?).
AR: “If it were in the Qur’an, Spencer would have used it as the top quote of every page of his blog!”
Nonsense. There is no shortage of verses in the Qur’an that call for killing of non-Muslims.
AR: “The bottom line is, he projects the actions of individuals onto the collective and doesn’t understand the difference between religious practice and cultural practice.”
He presents mainly news reports about how the implementation of sharia and jihad in today’s world impacts people, especially non-Muslims. He cites studies and polls, the results of elections, the laws and policies of various Muslim countries, the words of popular Muslim figures and leaders and how they are received by Muslim audiences, etc. In short, if you actually follow this blog, you will get an idea of the scale and scope of the problem. You will find that Robert definitely does not tar all Muslims as supporters of jihad and the harsh elements of sharia, and he acknowledges that not all Muslims practice these things. As Robert has said before, there is a spectrum of belief and practice, i.e., a range, variation, in belief and practice of Muslims. He even cites Muslims who oppose the jihadists.
AR: “Yes, there are some Muslim nations that have cultural practices that contradict Islamic religious teachings, but they do not represent Islam.”
The topic of this thread is the stoning to death of adulterers. Are you suggesting that this is not an Islamic tradition, that it is not taught in the texts that most Muslims regard as authoritative, that it is not a part of Islamic law?
AR: “Spencer conflates the two. He also takes the most extreme opinions out there about Islam and then presents them as normative or mainstream.”
He didn’t say most Muslims practice stoning to death for adultery. (Though, as I cited above, polls show that significant percentages of Muslims think it should be practiced). But it is the punishment according to mainstream Islamic law. It’s in the Hadith. Muhammad’s rulings are normative. The fact that not all Muslim countries have the full punishment simply indicates that they aren’t practicing Islamic law with respect to that sin-crime. If there is a version of mainstream Islamic law that excludes stoning for adultery, please present it.
RodSerling says
-correction on the Pew pdf: The correct link is here, see p. 221:
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
RodSerling says
CGW,
Much enjoyed your response to Adam Resla.
“For my fellow JW regulars, especially those like myself who have been here for THIRTEEN YEARS”
I think you meant eleven, or ten-and-a-half years. JW’s only been up since fall, 2003.
Thirteen, almost 13 years, since 9/11, at which time many of us started to get educated (beyond the msm presentation), though as you note some started before that. As for me, I started later. I began investigating Islam for myself in 2005.
RodSerling says
p.s. to Adam Resla,
I said “Muhammad’s rulings are normative.”
Qur’anic basis (just one example of many):
4:80 “Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them.”
gravenimage says
The repulsive “Adam Resla” wrote:
What a fucking fraud, this R. Spencer! At the top of the post, he quotes some words he says come from the Qur’an, but then he cites the words as coming from Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816.
…………………………………..
Like so many pious Muslims, reading comprehension is not Adam Resla’s strong suit. Spencer clearly states that Caliph Umar—one of the “Rightly-Guided” Caliphs and a companion of the “Prophet”—bemoaned the verse of Rajm (stoning) not being included in the Qur’an, and claiming that it had been originally.
Moreover, pious Muslims take the Sahih Hadith and the Sira quite as seriously as they do the Qur’an, and both confirm over and over that Muhammed condoned stoning, and had victims stoned to death.
More:
This guy is so fucking stupid and a hate mongering demon. Bukhari is not a chapter of the Qur’an at all. He is reading from a historical account that may or may not be accurate.
…………………………………..
Bukhari is known as “Sahih”—reliable. All pious Sunnis consider these Hadith an intrinsic part of Islam. Certainly, the Muslim cleric who issued the Fatwa above considered them to be so.
And characterizing the very reasonable Mr. Spencer as a “demon” shows just how hysterical this Muslim apologist is.
More:
Almost everything this guy says is hate-filled agenda.
…………………………………..
Notice that this pious Muslim doesn’t consider stoning a couple to death to be “hate-filled”, but daring to point out that this was done on Islamic grounds somehow is…
More:
Investigate him, and you’ll see. Also, check out the site: http://spencerwatch.com/ Spencer is an unprincipled, reckless hack, and doesn’t know anything about Islam. He only reads one or two verses here and there, takes them out of context (historical and literary) and then claims he is an expert on the subject.
…………………………………..
Cite anything that Spencer has gotten wrong. Waiting…
More:
I am curious what he makes of Matthew 10:34 (JV): “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” So…does that mean Christianity is a religion of terrorists? The word “sword” appears in the KJV Bible 384 times and a total of zero times in the Qur’an. And here we have a verse where Jesus himself proclaims his blood-thirst…
…………………………………..
What utter rot. Robert Spencer has in fact written a book *titled* “Not Peace But a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam”:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Peace-But-Sword-Christianity/dp/1938983289
Clearly, the Christian Jesus is a figure of peace, while the Muslim “Prophet” was a murderous warlord.
More:
The bottom line is, he projects the actions of individuals onto the collective and doesn’t understand the difference between religious practice and cultural practice. Yes, there are some Muslim nations that have cultural practices that contradict Islamic religious teachings, but they do not represent Islam.
…………………………………..
How does stoning “contradict Islamic religious teachings”? The “Prophet” practiced stoning, and this Fatwa was issued by a Muslim cleric, and on Islamic grounds. Within recent years, stoning has been practiced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, Somalia, and Pakistan, and is now on the books in Aceh, Indonesia.
Most of these countries have little in common culturally, but they certainly have *Islam* in common. In every case, this punishment has been condoned on Islamic grounds.
Moreover, there is no *non-Muslim* country where stoning is being practiced.
More:
Spencer conflates the two. He also takes the most extreme opinions out there about Islam and then presents them as normative or mainstream.
…………………………………..
Is that so? And yet, we have this:
According to the Pew survey, 82% of Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/stoning-adulterers/
How can these be “extreme” opinions if they are held by the majority of Muslims?
More:
Don’t be fooled by this idiot. Apply critical reasoning and make your one judgments.
…………………………………..
I always have. I respect Robert Spencer and consider him a trusted source, but the fact is that I have also done a great deal of independent research—in fact, I discovered Jihad Watch in the course of my own research.
The fact is that Islam is hideously bloody and violent, and that his violence is solidly based in its core texts and tenets.
No amount of calumny against Mr. Spencer is going to change that salient fact.
Champ says
Excellent response to “adam resla”, Gravenimage …hear, hear!
CGW says
RodSerling:
Of course you’re correct, I just did a quick it’s-2014-minus-9/11-so-13-years kind of thought. I’ve been with JW since the beginning, but the date is as you specify. I actually began my own study earlier (out of concern for my brother whose muslim girlfriend *lived with him* in a sexless-but-not-platonic relationship so that he would support her financially and because she was here illegally on an expired student visa. Actually, they’re still in that relationship, for something like 20 years, even though she, once she procurred her PhD, returned to her native Jordan and now comes to visit for 2 weeks a year. She won’t marry him until he converts, he’s Catholic and a drinker and gambler, but neither one will move on. Her family was and is entirely in the dark about the entire relationship, as she was certain that they would both be killed. Her own father had passed away, but she has a brother and plenty of male cousins “from the village” who would be pleased to cleanse the tribe’s honor.)
So good to see you here. I read here every day but rarely post.
CGW
RodSerling says
CGW,
Thanks. A tragic story, illustrating both the intolerance in Islam and sheer human stubbornness (or inertia).
I’ve always been interested in how people here first learned about the Islam problem. It would be great to have a comment thread just on that subject, sometime. In my case, it was, finally, the combination of the 7/7 attacks in the U.K. and the news stories in Ontario, Canada, about Muslim groups pressing for the introduction of sharia, that spurred me to do my own reading, leading me past the msm line that we are dealing with only a tiny minority of extremists.
dumbledoresarmy says
Dear “Rod Serling” – you wrote – “I’ve always been interested in how people here first learned about the Islam problem.”
Same here. Often, in the past, when a feisty new commenter turns up, I ask them just that. I have a place where I keep some of the replies…they’re always interesting. Not uniform at all, either. Everyone here had a different ‘wake-up call’.
You added:
“It would be great to have a comment thread just on that subject, sometime.”
Seconding that. I know some people’s stories, but the vast majority, not; and anyone who’s come on board recently hasn’t necessarily heard what people posted, say, five years ago when they were explaining “how / when I figured out that the Global Jihad was coming at us”.
ChildrenOfGod says
Islam the religion of savages. Islam is the religion of the Devil and I’ll say that to any moron that is part of that Devil Worshipping Religion. How can they condone stoning to death and raping women in their Religion? No other Religion on the planet murders someone for adultery or rape. This is disgusting.