In today’s strip, Jesus asks Mo to solve The Hard Problem of Islam. Mo behaves like a true “liberal” Muslim:
h/t: Linda Grilli
Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ stoning
June 18, 2014 • 4:22 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
ROTFL, especially at that last panel. No hesitation when it comes to drink!
I do wonder what mindset you’d have to experience to be unable to say “I do not condone stoning adulterers to death.” I get that a spouse could go into a murderous rage upon finding out their partner’s been unfaithful, but how do you get from there to the rest of society cold-bloodedly having execution for adultery as a lawful punishment? Adultery is not exactly torture or murder, and a cuckold could just divorce and find someone else, right?
The penalty applies only to women.
This is what you get when 50% of our population are viewed as property by a significant proportion of the humans that inhabit this planet.
You will note that Sharia treats women as less than human when it comes to matters of dress, ability to move freely, testimony in court, ability to divorce, ability to control personal assets and so on.
“The penalty applies only to women.”
I haven’t read the Qu’ran, but I thought adulterous men were also punished as well? At least, that makes naive sense to me, considering how hated home-wreckers are.
The bar is set so high that it is impossible to prove adultery by a man, so even though they could be punished in theory, it never actually happens. L
And if it does, it might be just a sham:
Yeah, I imagine it’s a tad easier to escape when your arms and hands aren’t pinned.
And BTW, not just any stones will do:
(Emphasis mine.)
Bit of background on the inspiration for this comic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCKlehpQcBQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JlUMY8l6bE
There are others but I think you get the point.
Maajid Nawaz thinks linearly and quite clearly articulates positions, rare human qualities always in dire need and particularly desparately wanted on this planet right now. I’m surprised a devout follower of Islam has not taken him out already. Is he required to live as carefully as Rushdie?
Ooh, I love that last statement from the guy on the second video. Basically, you’re forcing me to admit that I agree that I won’t condemn stoning and chopping of hands, therefore it’s your fault that I believe that.
Yeah: it’s complicated, right! There’s nothing complicated about it. And he’s answered the question: He refuses to condemn the barbarities of Islamic law because “it’s complicated” which means: “It’s OK if Shariah says it’s OK.”
What a big fat liar.
— Religion Poisons Everything
I don’t get why it was so hard for that guy to just say “I disagree with stoning and chopping off hands”, and then claim his own enlightened interpretation of Sharia or Islamic Law when pressed. Moderate Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible they agree with all the time, and I imagine many moderate Muslims ignore the awkward bits of the Qu’ran too. What’s he got to lose by saying that?
Because it could get him killed by extremists?
Mohammed specifically said that there is no interpretation allowed. L
There is also no “picking and choosing” allowed.
Also, there is the doctrine of taqiyya, which says that it is OK to lie to non-Muslims if you think that your religion is threatened. So, if Muslims are in a more civilized society, they don’t have to admit to believing in their barbarities, lest they be “discriminated against”. L
So what is the penalty under Sharia for drinking alcohol ?
Loved the author’s comment under the panel:
A thought: if you’re too ashamed of your beliefs to admit to them in public, you might want to reconsider whether or not they’re worth holding on to.
“A thought: if you’re too ashamed of your beliefs to admit to them in public, you might want to reconsider whether or not they’re worth holding on to.”
That’s a pretty good litmus test!
That bit about “reconsidering” – of anything – marks the Author as a heretic of the worst kind.
Incidentally, it also marks any scientist as being irrevocably damned.
So what *is* the penalty for drinking alcohol? The first tenants in my rental house, who were Bosnian Muslims, were very proud of their home-made wine. Quite obviously their version of Islam differed markedly from the Saudis. And they didn’t wear black sacks, IIRC they didn’t even wear headscarves (though I could be mistaken on that, it was a long time ago. But it wasn’t until my fifth visit, when I spotted a Koran on top of the TV set, that I could even be sure they were Muslims).
Which suggests to me that lumping all Muslims together by implication is rather absurd. We know Sunnis and Shias are not the same since they spend most of their time killing each other…
By the way, re Mo’s first question, assuming stoning is in the Talmud (?), have any Jewish scholars condemned it? Has anybody asked them? Or is it so long since anyone did it that ‘we don’t do that shit anymore’ is an acceptable excuse in their case? (Serious question, I really don’t know the answers to that). As for Christians, we know they’ve done enough bad stuff they don’t have any moral authority left…
I’ve begun playing games with the door-to-door proselytizers. When they ring my doorbell, I answer with Bible already in hand. I tell them the Bible is a wonderfully inspiring tome. Then I say something like, “For example, I believe that rape is always wrong. How about you?”
After suckering them into agreeing, I nail them with Numbers 31:15-18.
I used to just not answer the door when these people came around. Now I’ve begun looking forward to it.
Some people get upset when I characterize the bible as “goat herder snuff porn”, but really I think I’m being to kind.
I think it was Penn Jillette who answered I get my morality from porn because there is less rape and murder when asked where he got his morality from if not the bible.
This panel reminded me of a remark that Christopher Hitchens made at a debate with Stephen Fry against Ann Widdecombe and John Onaiyekan about five years ago. He said, in reference to the development of Catholic thought about slavery: “From a beginning point of absurdity, you arrive at a terminal point of absolute moral chaos.” I think that ihis idea is applicable to a lot of religious ethics and that this cartoon provides a perfect example of Hitchens’s point. Taking the Kuran seriously is the beginning point of absurdity and stoning is the terminal point of absolute moral chaos.
Does anyone know of a good charity that works to help victims of religious fanaticism?
Some CFI chapters do some peer-support sessions, which is no doubt only a tiny part of the puzzle, but …
There’s the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Foundation:
http://theahafoundation.org/
Every time this subject comes up, we keep hearing that there are “liberal” Muslims who…helped the police track down a would-be suicide bomber before the attack could be carried out.
I’d really appreciate if any of those defending these so-called “liberal” Muslims could include references to those same “liberal” Muslims condemning dismemberment and stoning, under any and all circumstances, extant and hypothetical both.
Again, the only ones I know of willing to do that are the atheist Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maryam Namazie.
Cheers,
b&
Watching the World Cup got me thinking. What about Bosnia? Aren’t most Bosnians Muslim? Why don’t polls of Muslim opinions about stoning, etc include Bosnians? Could they be the real moderate Muslims? And what can they tell us about the compatibility of Islam and democracy? Am I crazy and these are stupid questions? It could be; I haven’t thought this through too carefully.
NAILED IT!!!