Jesus and Mo illustrates what happens when you raise the topic of stoning in a public debate …
Now this is where you might be tempted to chip in and suggest that the above is a cartoon, and that it does not in any way represent how a devout Muslim would really reply …. well, hold that thought, because the above is in fact a wholly accurate description of the dialog that was exchanged on last sunday’s BBC “The Big Debate”.
Within the following clip at 07:58, Maajid Nawaz turns and asks Adnan Rashid –
“If in an Islamic State with the Sharia conditions all being perfect, in principle I condemn stoning a women to death, do you in an Islamic State with the Sharia conditions being perfect, do you condemn the stoning of a woman for adultery to death?”.
His reply ….
“There is no yes or no answer”.
They then proceed to press Adnan for an answer and want to know why there is no “yes or no” answer, but he continues to duck and refuses to answer.
Maajid Nawaz used to be a member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir, he was arrested in December 2001 in Egypt and was imprisoned there until 2006. He resigned from Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, and co-founded Quilliam with former activists from radical Islamist organisations, including Ed Husain. In other words, he is now one of the good guys and is making a real difference out there.
Nawaz met with Tommy Robinson, then leader of the English Defence League (a far-right extreme group) during the filming of a BBC documentary in 2013 and that led directly to Robinson and the co-leader of EDL, Kevin Carroll, having talks with Quilliam. This resulted in both Robinson and Carroll leaving the EDL on 8 October 2013.
On the other side of the fence we have Adnan Rashid, the guy who suggested that stoning was a complex issue. He is a señor member of iERA, an Islamic hate group that promotes female genital mutilation, the killing of apostates from Islam, the death penalty for homosexuality, and wife beating (Yes really), so it is no surprise to find that stoning people to death is an idea he supports.
It is also rather interesting to note that he is rather embarrassed by this reality and is not prepared to be honest about what he actually thinks, and instead opts to not actually answer a rather simple “yes or no” question, and ducks it with “it’s a complex issue”. No it’s not, it is a very simple issue, answering “yes” is the wrong answer, and deep down he knows that, but simply cannot come to terms with that reality conflicting with his belief.