Thanks for your 'fictional' support. However, I do not withdraw conclusions, my name is not Goldstone.

When the day comes, that an angry mob will pass judgment upon you, you may count on me not throwing a stone, because I am not without sin. I will stand there and plead for your life, kappert. I just hope, that you can find it in you to make a distinction, at least once in life.

Murder is a crime under sharia law as well as under any other law. Under sharia law, the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery varies between stoning and a hundred lashes - which is a quite different punishment - and must be met under the scrutiny of judicial authority. To kill a husband/wife is a crime, punished severely, in the U.S. as in Pakistan.

Kappert,

I believe the behadithed would appeal your ruling, if she could. In this case, it does appear that Sharia Law took precedence over the nominal law of the land.

Do you know the difference between 'myth' and 'fiction'?

By the way, what do you find 'amusing' or 'fictional' regarding the posts?

The case Capodistria mentions is a case of murder and, as such, prosecuted by the law of the country. It is a notable case of failure of integration and will be ruled by the laws of the country.

That is the legal question, even in upstate New York.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/buffalo-new-york-moderate-muslim-who-beheaded-his-wife-had-low-self-esteem.html

I too vote for Kappert's Fictional Character.

Thank you Prof B. for yet another instructive and amusing post.

Thanks for your effort. The Hadith (translation: report) is a narrative collection on Mohammed's time (7th century). It is one tool to understand Islamic jurisprudence. As you surely know, when Mohammed refers to 'Jews', he meant the Jews living in Mecca at his time. In constant quarrel with Medina (623-630), Mohammed ended the dispute with great benevolence. Stoning was at that time a common execution form, exercised by pagans, Muslims and Jews (you quote Moses), while Christians, many centuries later, preferred to burn women. Today, there are few countries in which Sharia law is applied with these harsh, scripture abiding forms of punishment (Iran, Saudi-Arabia). The discrimination of women, though, is a widespread human and social problem, manifested in any patriarchal society (Islam, orthodox Jews, Catholicism, ...). We should question these masculine suppression mechanisms in any society, and not restrict it as an attack on Islam. The Gospel you quote is far from being applied in 'our' societies.

Nice findings. Yet, many 'ifs' and 'whens', the text must be understood and translated first, and there is surely no lack of 'saviours of Israel', the list of 'messiahs' is quite impressive, in fact, still today a quite common sense, just remember the Obama election.

For Kappert, in whose eyes Jesus is a myth while Mohammed is an historical person, I offer a little exercise in the comparative method.

First from Hadith these inspirational texts: 

[A woman who had conceived in adultery] said: Allah’s Apostle, here is [my child] as I have weaned him and he eats food.  He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her.

Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: Allah’s Apostle, I have done something for which (prescribed punishment) must be imposed upon me, so impose that. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) called her master and said: Treat her well, and when she delivers bring her to me. He did accordingly. Then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) pronounced judgment about her and her clothes were tied around her and then he commanded and she was stoned to death.

Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) stoned to death the Jews, both male and female, who had committed adultery. The Jews brought them to Allah’s Messenger (may peace he upon him). The rest of the hadith is the same.

Next from the Gospel of John (King James Version, 8: 2 – 11): 

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery…  They [said] unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?”

This they said, tempting Him that they might have to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. 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.”

***

And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

I vote for Kappert’s fictional character.

The Isle has almost been sane without you. In answer to your prayers and posts, the Drudge oracle has the following headline for you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372741/Hidden-cave-First-portrait-Jesus-1-70-ancient-books.html

Imagine centuries from now when avatars and bots debate did Kappert physically exist or was that just a virgin bit birth on TBJ?

I accept your line of defence. Yet, while descriptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been quite different. Simultaneously, the appraisal of medieval Popes has greatly changed. Muhammad's life and deeds have been discussed, debated and criticized by followers and opponents over the centuries. While Christian sources condemn Attila the Hun as brutal slaughterer, there are some histories and chronicles describing him as a great and noble king, and Alexander the Great even was hailed as a God, though he apparently was a madman. The Roman Empire in Palestine has no record whatsoever on a Jesus from Nazareth (maybe it was lost over the times), and his 'eyewitnesses' surely did not wrote the gospel. Just like the hadith on Mohammed, the gospels were written centuries later. So I might wonder, what 'forensic psychiatry', which is only an opinion, we might squeeze out of shambles of tales and histories.

Forensic psychiatry was done by MDs, not by Geert Wilders, according to symtomps observed.  It's done by comparison to known medical cases, as we can guess.

But to attack GW for his infomation research on Mohammad is out of place.  What Mohammad has done is rather well recorded by his followers and relatives.  Being able to pin down the medical cause for M's abnormal behavior provides more insight by similarity.

The worst part of Islam is to subscribe blindly to its creed and the doctrine that Mo was a perfect man whose criminal behavior is to be imitated, and whose commands to kill Jews and infidels are to be obeyed.  Think about it.  A perfect man whose behavior was historically recorded and proved to be criminal and murderous.  With such a moral yardstick, can much good be expected from Islam?

Kappert, perhaps when as many people worship Attila or Alexander as do Mohammed, we may be regaled by analyses befitting their religious stature. Until then, their mental condition has nothing to do with that of Mohammed, who Mr. Wilders chose to write about.

I have friends who've read the Koran in its original Arabic - every despicable word of it. I can easily see mental imbalance in the author, and it's corroborated by historical accounts of that time. What does surprise me is the length to which people will go to make excuses for this "religion." Open your mind and learn something worth knowing.

Well, Attila the Hun was no less of a brutal butcher than Muhammad. Alexander might have been close at their heels too. But Jesus of Nazareth, I am sure you would testify to that, was, according to the scriptures, the complete opposite of the "Last Prophet". Interestingly, only the latter holds much sway over our lives today.

So yes, maybe Mr. Wilders should grace us with a psychogram of Jesus (to illustrate the contrast). I just do not think, that it would add any weight to your opinion, so we might es well just forget that you asked.

After roughly 1500 years, GW gives us an insight on Mohammad. Now we know more about his medical and psychological life than about Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or Ronald Reagan. How about analysing Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great or Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sure GW is able to produce a colourful story on each one of them.