“You’re an embarrassment to this religion”: Muslim Maajid Nawaz rips apart a Muslim who thinks women should be stoned for adultery

From LBC Radio (“Leading Britain’s Conversation”), we have a two-minute segment of Maajid Nawaz taking apart a coreligionist who can’t bring himself to consider whether stoning a woman to death for adultery might be, well, a wee bit harsh. The site’s notes:

The LBC presenter, himself a Muslim, insisted that elements of the Quran are simply not fit for modern life and should be ignored.

And when Joe insisted on consulting a scholar on whether stoning a woman for adultery should be allowed, Maajid couldn’t hold back any longer.

Joe asked Maajid his thoughts on those elements of the Quran and he responded: “I’m saying that we can’t implement them, we have to suspend them, we have nothing to do with those attitudes in this day and age, that is an out-of-date notion.

“What do you say? In an ideal Islamic state, when all the Sharia conditions are met and it’s allShariacompliant, is it still wrong to stone an adulterous woman to death?”

When Joe responded: “I’m not in a position to answer that. I’m not a scholar to answer that,” Maajid hit back hard.

He boomed: “There we are. You need a scholar to tell you that it’s wrong to stone a woman to death?

“Joe, you have just exposed yourself to the nation as the apologist that I suspected you were from the beginning of this call.

“The reason you are taking offense at me exposing some of this is because deep down inside you you can’t even bring yourself as a human being to condemn the notion of stoning a woman to death, just because some man who’s got a medieval scripture stuck in his head, hasn’t told you that it’s wrong?

“How would you react if you asked me ‘Is it wrong to torture a baby?’ and I said to you ‘I don’t know because the Pope hasn’t told me yet‘?

“You’d think I’m subhuman. You’d think I’m inhuman, Joe.

 

Now nobody on this site (I hope!) favors this kind of barbarism, but I note again that those feminists and Regressive Leftists who refused to criticize Muslims because they are brown, and therefore oppressed, rarely say anything about stoning, which is part of sharia law in some countries, and never say anything about forced veiling, morality police, and the general denigration of women in Muslim countries—all of this based on Islam.

Frankly, I’m amazied that a single non-insane person in this world thinks a woman should be killed by being pelted with rocks for copulating with a man who’s not her husband—but it’s not that rare. Here are the data from the 2013 Pew Report on the world’s Muslims showing the percentage of those Muslims who believe sharia should be the law of the land—a high proportion of all Muslims in these Muslim-majority lands—who think women should be stoned for adultery. Read and weep!

And here are the proportion of Muslims in each country that favor sharia as the law of the land. These proportions can be roughly multiplied by the ones above to get the proportions of all Muslims in a country who favor stoning an adulterous woman to death:

Linda Sarsour, the nasty piece of work idolized by many feminists and regessives, also publicly favors sharia law. If pressed, she’d probably say she favors a milder version of sharia than the one above, but she has given approbation for Saudi sharia law, which stipulates the death penalty for adultery, with the preferred method of execution being stoning. It hasn’t been done for several years, but is still on the books, and I suspect is done in rural areas.   Here are the tweets from a feminist hero:

89 Comments

  1. Posted May 22, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    In the 13th paragraph which starts with ‘Frankly’ you wrote I’m amazing, I think you intended to write I’m amazed. But I won’t argue with the former either.

    • Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      It’s a little known fact that Paul McCartney’s original title for “Maybe I’m Amazed” was “Frankly I’m Amazing.”

    • Posted May 22, 2017 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      It’s fixed now, thanks.

  2. bascule
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    Well here in the UK we get 26 weeks paid maternity leave AND women can drive! I’m also unaware that these are due to religious principles enacted in law.

    • veroxitatis
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      Statutory Maternity Pay is payable for up to 39 weeks in the UK. Some companies provide contractual maternity pay in addition. This may increase the period of payment or the amount of payment or both.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      In NZ we get 18 weeks paid parental leave. Unpaid, you can take 12 months. Either parent can take it.

      Some countries have up to two years. The US is an outlier amongst Western nations for its lack of maternal or parental leave. Most of us are higher up international indices for women’s equality than the US too. Sarsour picks bad examples for equality in both the US and Saudi Arabia.

      • veroxitatis
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

        I was a little surprised to hear that the statutory period for maternity pay was only 18 weeks. I wonder if contractual terms in large companies at least are a bit more generous.

        The US is an “outlier” not only with respect to maternity and paternity leave but also in connection with paid leave generally and sick pay.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

          Yes, we are a bit behind with maternity leave. We’re gradually increasing it. Everyone gets a minimum 4 weeks annual leave, and many get more, plus about 12 days of statutory holidays a year.

          Our legal minimum for sick leave is only 5 days, but employees must we allowed to accumulate up to 20 days. However, good employers usually have unlimited sick leave. Most employees don’t use their sick leave unnecessarily, and if they’re having major surgery, four weeks isn’t long enough. An employee who abused unlimited sick leave would lose their job if they did it too often anyway. Employers with unlimited sick leave statistically spend less on sick leave.

          • Randy schenck
            Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

            I wonder, on the sick leave – are you talking about state workers or is this the same for private companies? Here the sick leave can be from nothing to pretty good in the private world but I have never heard of unlimited. In the federal employment world sick leave is generally pretty good and accumulates, but may vary in different federal jobs or employers. At the firm I worked for you could accumulate sick leave and then add it to your total time for retirement.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

              The law stipulates a minimum and applies to all employers in all circumstances, government, private, whatever. Any employer can provide a better deal if they choose. Often individuals or unions negotiate better deals too. No one can give or get a worse deal than that in the law in any circumstances. Better deals are more often seen in private companies, though not always, but government jobs are slightly more secure. It’s not that easy to fire someone though in government or private. There has to be a series of verbal and written warnings to give the person the opportunity to correct their behaviour.

              Everyone, in all circumstances, has to have an individual or union employment contract. The minimum the contract must include is set out by law. You can look up the requirements on NZ government websites.

            • veroxitatis
              Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

              SSP (statutory sick pay) in the UK is only 3 days. However, many companies provide better terms contractually. The great division is between white collar and other jobs (unless the relevant union is strong) Generally, in white collar jobs in the private sector one to three months sick pay is normal with six months the norm for those higher up the pecking order. In the public sector, government, local government NHS etc the usual period is six months full pay followed by six months half pay. I am not aware of carry forwards although there may need to be an adjustment where a period of sicness straddles the leave year.

              • Randy schenck
                Posted May 22, 2017 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

                Thanks to both Heather and Veroxitatis for the info. Always amazes the average U.S. employee how up for grabs it is here.

  3. Martin Levin
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    US, Liberia, Paua New Guinea and a couple of thers only places without paid mat leave. Canada offers anywhere from 17 to 52 weeks, no religion involved. Sarsour is full of it.
    http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0512/maternity-leave-basics-canada-vs.-the-u.s..aspx

  4. somer
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    In Malaysia 70% of people think that women should be stoned for adultery but they do get excited about shampooing hijabs

    • Kevin
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

      Masterful. Either I can be upset, again, over the oppression and violence imparted to woman in the name of Islam or I can watch a woman get two for one shampoo and washing machine.

      Here’s a new value packed product line for Muslim women: headscarfs plus shampoo with complimentary bag of stones for hubby. All Sharia approved.

  5. rickflick
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if men can be stoned to death for adultery under Sharia law? Not that it would make it any less repulsive. If not, why not?

    • bric
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      Surely you jest?

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Yes, they can, though mostly it’s just the woman who is stoned.

      There was a case just this week in The Telegraph of a young couple buried to the neck (the usual method) and stoned to death for breaking Islamic law in Mali.

      • rickflick
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

        Pretty grim. Let peace be upon you.

    • somer
      Posted May 23, 2017 at 5:21 am | Permalink

      This is most likely to happen to young couples who defy their parents wishes to marry them to someone they have already been contracted to by forced marriage. The normal religious understanding is that sexual crimes are 9 times out of 10 the fault of the woman and property crimes the 9:10 the fault of the man. This comes from Caliph Ali a few years after the Prophet’s death – Ali was his nephew and son in law. Plus there are hadith where Mohammed pardons a man who has committed adultery with a married woman (and actually confessed to it). Whilst Mohammed pardons the man saying that he may not have remembered what happened correctly, Mohammed orders the female to be imprisoned then stoned once she has delivered the resulting child. In Shia and Sunni lands alike, there is a steady stream of accounts of killings of girls and women thought to have acted in a manner than might possibly attract the attention of men to whom she is not married or closely related, or to have made it possible for men to have some kind of flirtation or sexual contact with her. e.g. the Biological roots of heat of passion killings and honour crimes, Matthew A Goldstein. http://www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/papers/Sprinkle/PUAF_650_Sprinkle/04a_Goldstein.pd

      If a woman is raped, and it becomes known by the community, and she is not judged to have tried to fight off her attackers, she is considered to have committed Zina (adultery) (various sources and Hanifa) The Hanifa book of the Islamic Laws defines Zina (adultery) in the case of a man as sexual intercourse by the man with a woman in whom he has no lawful property, having earlier literally defined a wife as property (wife defined as the possessed and as the person serving, not served and likewise the slave). In the case of the woman she has committed zina if she is not his wife or slave and she is judged to have allowed the man to do it to her. Plus the scriptures are explicit that a man can have sex with his female slave but a woman may not with a male slave. Rape can never really be proved – as where are four male witnesses to the act to be found ? False accusation for adultery merits 80 lashes, but as the witnesses must be male the woman is far more likely to be punished. Also she is the one who is monitored and controlled the most – by her family by her mother-in-law and husband, and by her mahram.

      Slander, Adultery, theft, incitement/rebellion against Islam or the Islamic ruler are mentioned in Quran and considered a crime against god and therefore requiring set punishment as specified in Quran (whipping, stoning, amputation, crucifixion, banishment etc). Ironically stoning for adultery is not in the Quran but its in sahih hadith and its held that an ancient ijma or consensus of All the world’s Islamic scholars ruled that the punishment for adultery involving a Married person should be stoning. Such a (probably mythical) consensus of All the ancient scholars is held to be equal to the Quran when it is also confirmed by sahih hadith. Not everything orthodox across the schools and sects since 9th Century or before is logical. For example the 5 pillars of islam are supposed to come, not from the hadith of those who knew Mohammed narrating his doings and things approved of him, or hadith of the Prophet’s Companions or hadith from Ali and his successors BUT FROM the hadith of the Angel Gabriel!!! Nevertheless, it appears Islam took its present form late in the rule of the first dynasty of caliphs, the Ummayads (Tom Holland In the Shadow of the Sword) and certainly before end 9th Century – the alleged formation date of the first schools of Orthodox Islam (e.g. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, Wael B. Hallaq).

      • rickflick
        Posted May 23, 2017 at 7:41 am | Permalink

        Islam sounds like a nightmare. I can hardly imagine a worse basis for organizing society short of a hell hole like North Korea. Yet advocates like Sarsour claim it is the best of all possible worlds.

  6. Perluigi Ballabeni
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    I had never heard of any country that has such a short paid maternity leave.

    • Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      You’re kidding, right?

      If not, want to know how long paid maternity leave is here in the U.S.?

      • Perluigi Ballabeni
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, I do not know about th US. I live in Switzerland that has 16 weeks, which is considered rather short compared to continental standards.

        • Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          In the U.S. the paid maternity (and paternity) leave standard is 0 weeks.

          In 1993 a federal law was passed that required employers to keep a job open for 16 weeks but there is no pay for that time (ergo, UNpaid maternity leave). Employers are NOT required to keep the same job open (though in practice they usually do) and that means for some, having a baby means the end of the job they had.

          There are laws in some states that look like maternity leave. For example, New York State is often (incorrectly) said to have a maternity leave law but what it really has is a law saying that women can apply for disability benefits (a kind of social security) for up to 26 weeks after the birth of a child – the money comes from state insurance funds. The Federal maternity leave law (the one noted above) then keeps your job for 16 of the 26 weeks. Some states expand the length of the unpaid leave guaranteed by the feds.

          It’s a mess and decades behind everyone else.

  7. veroxitatis
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    It would be just as barbaric to strap her to a gurney and inject chemicals into her until she is dead.

    • Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      I disagree.

      • veroxitatis
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        Project yourself perhaps 50 years into the future and you may just have a different opinion.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

          How about projecting yourself as an adult human being? You argue about the best way to kill a woman for adultery? Are you insane?

        • Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

          I pressed “send” prematurely. To elaborate: I think it depends on how you define “barbaric” and which “chemicals” are injected. My only point is that once you’ve decided to kill someone, making it drawn out and painful is more barbaric than making it quick and painless. This is why beheading was considered a lighter penalty than burning at the stake in medieval Europe. Which would you prefer if you were condemned? I’d take the lethal injection.

          • veroxitatis
            Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

            Treating adultery as a crime, far less a capital crime is per se barbaric. Obviously, I take your point about degrees of barbarity but don’t see that as the most important issue.

            • Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

              Ok. Of course, I agree that treating adultery as a crime is barbaric. I thought you were doing one of those “the West isn’t any better” moves and saying capital punishment by lethal injection is basically equivalent to stoning an adulterer. I missed your point.

              • veroxitatis
                Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

                No, that was not my intention. But I do hope that within some 50 or so years the US will have joined civilised nations.

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

                I hope it takes a lot less than 50 years. It’s already been ?decades that the US has been the only Western nation to retain the death penalty.

  8. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    A picture is worth a thousand words

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      Liberals do not support Islamists. Regressive leftists do.

      And there is a sizeable group on the far right that supports things like the death penalty for homosexuality. At things like CPAC there are groups that have pamphlets on display that discuss the best way to kill gay people WHEN it becomes law in their ideal world. So don’t go praising the right.

      I’ve seen the meme above on Twitter for years but without the rows of writing about liberals and the right wing. I’ve never seen it with this added before.

      It astounds me that the right think they have the moral high ground in this. Their president has just been to Saudi Arabia and made a point of saying he won’t be telling them what to do. I guess Raif Badawi, women, gays, atheists, jailed journalists etc can’t expect any support from Trump. Amazing what a bit of flattery will do.

      • rickflick
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

        I shudder to think what the Saudis will now do to their activists and protesters. I suspect and fear beheadings and torture will rise now that the lid is off.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

          Yeah. Beheadings have already increased under the current (new) king. Bet they’ll get worse now with Trump as the moral voice of the free world.

        • Posted May 24, 2017 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

          Not to mention “atheists” and “terrorists”.

          • rickflick
            Posted May 24, 2017 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

            Synonyms really.

      • BJ
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

        “And there is a sizeable group on the far right that supports things like the death penalty for homosexuality.”

        This sounds to me like a statement made from emotion. Do you have any data to back that up? A sizable group? Also, a couple of people on Twitter or social media sites (who may be trolling anyway) do not indicate a “sizable group.”

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

          Check out Rachel Maddock talking about death penalty for homosexuality supporters on YouTube. I’m not on a suitable device to provide a link sorry.

          • BJ
            Posted May 23, 2017 at 3:13 am | Permalink

            Again, one crazy on Youtube does not a “sizeble group” make. When you have time, I’d like to see if you have any data to back this up and, if not, back off the claim. Like your argument about domestic violence the other day where you called my point “pure nonsense”, once I pulled out real data to back it up, you stopped responding. I would like to have a constructive conversation wherein data and evidence wins over anecdotes and feelings. I feel (haha yes, I do see this irony in this statement) that the commenting community here is partly for correcting bias through evidence-based reasoning.

            • somer
              Posted May 23, 2017 at 6:38 am | Permalink

              I think I made the pure nonsense comment re domestic violence and I don’t think your data really proved anything – other than fine DV often involves mutual violence – but what degree ? The ratio of male to female deaths by DV is tiny. in Australia alone, with only 23 million over 100 women are killed by DV every year.

              • BJ
                Posted May 23, 2017 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

                Somer — the links I provided showed that, in non-reciprocal relationships, 23% of DV was committed by men and 26% by women.

              • Posted May 24, 2017 at 6:21 am | Permalink

                Yes, the degree is important. On average, women are much weaker than men. Moreover, I suspect that when a woman tries to resist being beaten by her partner, this is counted by some as female-vs-male domestic violence.

              • BJ
                Posted May 24, 2017 at 6:34 am | Permalink

                Men are more likely to injure in a one-sided DV dispute, but women are more likely to kill. Point is, both sides get abuse equally. And my stats did prove that, and now the goalposts have been moved.

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted May 23, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

              I meant Rachel Maddow. I also meat to come back and fix that comment doomed by autocorrect, but I had problems to deal with in the real world. Sorry about that.

              I’m having trouble responding to anything at the moment because I don’t have a proper computer. I didn’t respond because I don’t have access to the data at the moment, and I don’t know when I will. I’m struggling to keep up on an old tablet.

              I also didn’t know you were the same person from the other day. I’ve a tendency to forget names related to specific dialogues – I only respond to the argument. We could have a good encounter on another topic and I’d have no idea it was the same person I’d had a bad one with. It takes me a very, very long time to remember names in person too, though in person I do remember all my contacts with people because I have other clues to help.

              • BJ
                Posted May 23, 2017 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

                Hey, I appreciate the explanation/post, if nothing else. But please look into the stats I provided. I hope empirical data will change your mind about some things.

                As an aside, you always conduct yourself on here with grace and civility, so thank you for that. I can learn from you, too, regardless of whether or not we always agree. That’s the great things people like rgressives haven’ts learned. Sometimes I get a bit worked up (though not in that particular thread — just in general).

              • Heather Hastie
                Posted May 23, 2017 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

                Thanks for your kind words, and I will look when I have a proper computer again. Cheers. 🙂

      • JonLynnHarvey
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

        I do NOT support the text at the bottom of this!! Only copy at hand. Was too lazy to photoshop and put on Google Docs.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

          Good to know! 🙂

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        I have mixed feelings about Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia. Obviously he has been taking lessons in diplomacy (which is a much-needed Good Thing). Just a pity that the first beneficiaries of it are the right-wing asshole of the Arab world.

        cr

        • somer
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

          Its a very old pattern – presumably because
          a) fear Iran will conquer SA – its an ally of Russia and its would cause a conflagration of the whole ME
          b) we are still significantly dependent on their oil and Trump has no intention of doing anything about that

          • BJ
            Posted May 23, 2017 at 3:16 am | Permalink

            I think it’s really just (a) now. We take some of the oil to make them feel good and give them money, but, from a pragmatist’s view (and that’s the only view you can take in diplomacy), sometimes you have to stay friends with horrible people to keep even worse things from happening. I shudder to think what would happen to both the ME and Israel if Iran doubled or tripled its regional and global power.

        • Posted May 24, 2017 at 6:22 am | Permalink

          At least, I wish to her that he has advocated for Raif Badawi and his lawyer during the visit. But I do not hold my breath.

      • Kirbmarc
        Posted May 24, 2017 at 4:48 am | Permalink

        It’s not a matter of right vs. Left, it’s a matter of liberal democratic principles vs. authoritarians. The Regressive Left brigade are often all-around authoritarians with no respect for liberal democratic principles, just like the Reactionary Right. We need all the genuine liberal democratic people on all sides of the aisle to come together on this issue, without partisanship.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 24, 2017 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

          Good point.

  9. harrync
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Sarsour must be very financially naive if she thinks there is no interest under sharia law. There is; they just don’t call it interest. For example, you buy a house. The “sharia compliant” bank loans you the full purchase price, with the stipulation you immediately sell the house to them. You also agree to buy the house back from them at a higher price, and pay for the house over, say, 30 years, making “interest free” monthly payments. Just by coincidence, that higher price you agreed to means that your “no interest” monthly payments are exactly the same as if you had taken out a standard 4% loan.

    • Malcolm
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      I was going to make the same point. There are multiple ways of dressing up interest as something else in Islam cf
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance#Types_of_Islamic_lending

      and as for credit cards :http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/shariah-compliant-credit-cards-1273.php

      No doubt the catholic church was just as flexible when they barred Christians from charging interest

      Essentially it all just the usual religious way of being hypocritical and believing their god is too stupid to see through a naming convention.

      • Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        My favorite example of this kind of flexibility for Catholicism is when the Pope declared that capybaras are fish so they could be eaten on Fridays during lent. The locals in South America were not about to stop eating them, so “fish” they became.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

        Yes, the Catholic Church used to do similar things. Using one of those methods is how the Knights Templar got so rich. Crusaders and hangers-on would deposit funds with their local chapter which they could draw on during the journey. They would pay a fee for the privilege. Of course, if the person died, which most did, it was extremely rare for their next-of-kin to have evidence of the deposit, so the Church kept the funds.

        • rickflick
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

          Hey, wait…that would be immoral wouldn’t it? We’re talking about devout Christians here. 😉

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

            🙂

        • nicky
          Posted May 22, 2017 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

          Didn’t the Templars got screwed (well, muredered) by that very church for the very same reason: ‘funds’?

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted May 22, 2017 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

            Depends who you believe. I think the Church wanted their money and trumped up charges against them, but that’s not the official story.

            Btw, both my computers are now in the hospital so I can’t post to my website.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, that occurred to me too, though I didn’t know the details of how it worked.

        Or rather, it occurred to me that there must be such a mechanism. The laws of economics overrule the laws of man or religion.

        cr

    • nicky
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      I do not think she’s so much naive as duplicit.

    • somer
      Posted May 23, 2017 at 12:04 am | Permalink

      Plus there is absolutely no institutional welfare provisions in places like Pakistan

      you pay a poor due 2% of your assets which goes to the [Muslim only] poor but also goes to building Mosques and can go to anything that furthers the cause of Islam. Like Church tithes only unlike social security taxes it doesnt establish an ongoing, structural state supported way of supporting the poor, or non religious education and health. Pakistan has no school program and barely any services.

    • Posted May 24, 2017 at 6:23 am | Permalink

      I think she is not naive but lying, like a good Islamist.

  10. Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    10 week’s annual leave is nothing. The Nazis granted loans to married couples so the woman wouldn’t have to work at all. Have one baby and 25% of the loan would be cancelled, have two and 50% would be cancelled, have four and you wouldn’t have to pay back a mark. Sarsour would have loved it.

    • Tom
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the similarities between Islam and the Nazi state should put every right thinking person on guard.
      I view “moderate” Islam and “radical” Islam as akin to Franco’s facism and Hitlers hateful Reich.
      We see the same “world power or ruin” anti-philosophy encouraged by the prancing Austrian now repeated by the various caliphate thugs.
      Hopefully the tiny seeds of reform sown by the science in the heartlands of Islam will grow.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        I hope you’re not counting annual / maternal leave or child support among those similarities that should put us on our guard?

        The fundamental problem with that approach is that you can easily find ‘similarities’ between any two arbitrarily chosen regimes, which makes it useless for diagnostic or predictive purposes though very convenient for rhetorical purposes.

        cr

        • Tom
          Posted May 23, 2017 at 12:03 am | Permalink

          Good point, but the prancing Austrian showed how important rhetoric was to his cause and many people did predict he he would lead Germany to war.
          Nevertheless good point.

        • BJ
          Posted May 23, 2017 at 3:20 am | Permalink

          Hell, Eisenhower got his idea for a national highway system from a great idea made up by none other than Hitler.+

    • veroxitatis
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      Presumably that would not have applied to just any old baby! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DLHt1OSXI

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      That’s not entirely surprising. There’s no law of nature that says everything the Nazis [/ substitute any other political system you care to name] did, has to be evil. Their aim was to run a prosperous, successful country after all. Unfortunately along with their good ideas they also had some very bad ones.

      cr

      • somer
        Posted May 23, 2017 at 2:03 am | Permalink

        or they needed more babies to be future warriors. Plus the prosperity thing was fleeting – they needed production for their war machine. Moreover even the pre Nazi, Weimar govts currency crash was mostly because that govt kept feverishly spending on rebuilding its military tucked away in USSR (with whom it had a WW1 pact), pushed into Alsace border, or posing as increase in civilian aviation. The supposedly ruinous Versailles economic retribution never went ahead, because the Americans (to whom the Brits and French owed a great deal of war debt for war equipment and provisions) stopped it after a couple of years. The Brits and French went on paying there (lower but still high) rate of what they owed.

        • Posted May 24, 2017 at 6:29 am | Permalink

          “or they needed more babies to be future warriors.”

          Of course! The long-term goal of the Nazis was Germans to take over the dry land, killing off everyone else. You cannot hope to achieve this without a high birth rate. Now the Islamists also want to take over the dry land. They do not wish to exterminate everybody, it will be enough for them if other people just submit, convert and become like them. But even then, such a conquest program needs a lot of babies.

  11. Taz
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    How about a compromise, Saudi Arabia. You can stone women to death as long as you let them drive – at high speed – into the people who are trying to stone them.

  12. Gemma Jillian
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    view “and weep” I did.

    “The Stoning of Soraya M” of
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stoning_of_soraya_m

    Has terrible review at rotten tomatoes: says it is with “a heavy-handed approach.” Aaah, yeah, I guess…”heavy” as in brutally dead therefrom!

  13. jimroberts
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    What I don’t understand is that some of the support for stoning is so low, given that these are people who support sharia. Why not 100% all through?

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

      Because the majority who support ‘sharia law’ are supporting their modernised conception of it, which has lost much of the mediaeval barbarity of the original.

      Exactly the same way as those Christians who like to preach about Western civilisation or the US) as being ‘founded on Judeo-Christian principles’ will vehemently deny the more toxic diktats in the Bible.

      There are obviously vastly differing interpretations of Islam, just as there are with Xtianity.

      cr

    • somer
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

      The old testament mentions stoning as required for adultery but the Talmud (Oral explanation of the Torah developed and put into writing by the Rabbis) sets so many conditions for this that it was almost never in practise done. The same can’t be said for Islamic laws and scriptures, although the Ottoman authorities didn’t allow it to be carried out and presumably relied on the Qurannic injunction to confine sexually misbehaving women in a building for life or flog them. In the rural areas, no doubt it persisted. Sahih bukhari explicitly said there are more women in hell than men, that women are impious because they have periods that hadith rule make them unfit for prayer at that time, and women are stupid because the Quran itself says the court testimony of a woman is not valid but two women may testify against one man.

    • somer
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

      I suspect its the difference between more sophisticated less tribal populations of the cities and rural areas – ex muslims often point this out

  14. Thanny
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    A nice example of gynocentrism. Men and women are stoned to death for adultery under some versions of Sharia, but everyone’s only concerned with the women.

    Islam is terrible to both men and women, often in different ways. With adultery, it’s equally terrible to both.

    Unless, of course, the woman can convince the judges that she was raped instead. Then she goes free and only the man is killed (the penalty for rape). He might even claim it was rape when it wasn’t, since he’s doomed either way, but she has a way out.

  15. nicky
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Must say that I’m shocked to learn that the US has no paid maternity leave. Even in a poor country like South Africa it is 16 weeks. And then the death penalty… The US is not really representative of a western democracy, I’d say.
    In one of her posts Heather pointed out that the judicial system of Saud/KSA (our respected ‘ally’) is not much different from that of ISIS/DAESH (our dreaded ennemy).
    Regardless of the pros and cons of the death penalty (I think the cons have it), stoning is a barbaric and horrible way to kill somebody, I would not even whish it on the despicable Sarsour.

  16. Gary Yane
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    How can any of those surveys be reliable? How would I answer those questions, if I lived in one of those countries? Why aren’t Muslins in the U.S. included.


%d bloggers like this: