Somali woman stoned to death for adultery

| 18/11/2009

(BBC): A 20-year-old woman divorcee accused of committing adultery in Somalia has been stoned to death by Islamists in front of a crowd of about 200 people. A judge working for the militant group al-Shabab said she had had an affair with an unmarried 29-year-old man. He said she gave birth to a still-born baby and was found guilty of adultery. Her boyfriend was given 100 lashes. According to reports from a small village near the town of Wajid, 250 miles (400km) north-west of the capital, Mogadishu, the woman was taken to the public grounds where she was buried up to her waist. She was then stoned to death in front of the crowds on Tuesday afternoon.

Go to article

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: World News

About the Author ()

Comments (31)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Gordon Barlow says:

    By their tribal nature, all religions take an uncharitable view of their rivals.  It is disappointing that some posters have used this obscene punishment (above) to condemn the religion of a billion adherents.

    To Christianity, Islam is an abomination – and vice versa.  Objectively, stoning a woman to death in Somalia is neither a worse nor a lesser atrocity than disemboweling a woman by soldiers’ bullets in Iraq.  An individual of no religion – and of no particular tribal loyalty – might consider them pretty much on a par.

    An execution by Muslims in Somalia no more proves the barbarity of Islam than an execution by Christians in Iraq proves the barbarity of Christianity.

    As for the distinction between military atrocities and civilian, I can only say "Tchah!"  An atrocity is an atrocity.  We need to be careful not to apply double standards.

    • Anonymous says:

      Nobody asked that you condemn the religion of a billion adherents based on this "obscene punishment"; you could have simply condemned the act.  It took you 3 posts to finally condemn the act?  Why not call it, "obscene" from the very beginning?  Because you thought, "geez, here’s an article about Islamic barbarity, why don’t I use it to attack the US and NATO?".  Real clever Gordon; and no, no bias whatsoever, right?  Later you warn that "we need to be careful not to apply double standards".  Really?  How convenient for you to ignore your own advise. 

    • Anonymous says:

      You may consider dropping the word "tribal".  You have reached its usage limit.  Every article you write contains some sort of "tribal" reference.  Find a new angle before your readers drop dead of boredom…

  2. Joe Average says:

    In the name of God???   Not my God!!!  My God exists in my heart!!! This is another example of a barbaric patriarchal religion.  Where did we lose sight?  These are NOT religions!!!  They are cults run by twisted old men.

    • Gordon Barlow says:

      Another barbaric religion is the one that endorses the US and NATO bombing of villagers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  All believers in the major Western religions ought to stand up and dissociate themselves from those atrocities. 

      Blackwater’s US owner is a strong public believer in the wholesale slaughter of Muslims.  I’m not sure which particular god he worships.  He claims to be a Christian, but that can’t be true.

      • Anonymous says:

        two wrongs do not make a right. the us and nato do not target innocent civilians, why would they? un fortunatly there is always some innocent life lost in wars, which is also wrong and reggrettable… the us and nato do everything they can to minimise the loss of human life

        Now , i dare you to condemn the what happened in the story above, time to show your true colours!

        • Anonymous says:

          True colours? Good grief! Not even Gordon’s most vociferous detractors would accuse him of being a defender of muslim atrocities – is that what you’re getting at? It’s not at all clear. Is English your first language?

          As for daring him to condemn what happened in the story above, which I’m assuming is what you were trying to say (try reading your comment before you hit "save"), why on earth would you think that he would have a problem with that?

          I beleive the point he’s making is that horrifying acts are not confined to a single religion. He’s right about Blackwater, which is run by pseudo-Christian thugs, but a little confused as to why most Afghans and Iraqis are dying. They are, as you say, mostly casualties of war.

          • Anonymous says:

            pseudo-christian thugs???

            why ‘most’ afghans and iraqis are dying?????

            maybe try re-reading your comment before hitting save and maybe you can throw in a few more groundless conspiracy filled statements….. that have nothing to do with the original article!

          • Gordon Barlow says:

            Thanks for the vote of confidence.  As a matter of record: I don’t approve of any atrocities in any circumstances.  In my younger days I travelled in nine Muslim countries (ten if you count Palestine), and found their peoples’ moral standards in general to be quite the equal of Western standards.  People are people.  Islam has its fundamentalist brutes, just as Christianity and Judaism have theirs.  

            As to the US and NATO slaughters of Afghan and Iraqi civilians, those are reckless killings rather than deliberate murders (except by Blackwater, which is an official US agent).  I don’t dismiss the deaths as "casualties of war", since the context there is military occupations rather than wars.  When the Germans slaughtered Jews in Poland, the victims weren’t dismissed as casualties of war.  The victims of Western bombs in the Middle East are no less innocent.

            • Anonymous says:

              Gordon, not exactly sure what is clouding your judgement.  First of all, the article has nothing to do with the US or NATO.  If you are unhappy about the "military occupations" as you call them, write an article.  But don’t shift the focus from a despicable act that deserves condemnation to something that is totally irrelevant to the article.

              • anon says:

                Have you tried reading the original post, these replies were made on.

                It is pretty clear it is talking about NATO and the US.

                It’s not hard its about 4 or 5 posts up, the one furthest to the left. Go on try reading it.

                If Gordon wanted to post solely on the article he would have commented instead of replying to the comment. You must know how as you replied to his comment yourself.

                It’s not rocket science!

                • Anonymous says:

                  Duh, reread my comment, particularly the part that says "the article has nothing to do with the US or NATO."…  Get it, or does your shoesize eclipse your IQ?  The article has nothing to do with the US or NATO.  Gordon’s original post was irrelevant.  Want to talk about the US or NATO, discuss it in some other forum.  This article had to do with a poor woman who was stoned to death.

                  • anon says:

                    Are you retarded?  re read "Two wrongs do not make a right" which Gordon was replying on and not original article, so his comment was relevant in connection to the the one he replied too

                    It is pretty simple, or maybe you’re stoned yourself. Better sober up before that CMA meeting

                    • Anonymous says:

                      If you’re looking for a retard, look no further than your mirror.  The article to which Gordon was replying was "In the name of God?  Not",  which was earlier to "Two wrongs…"  And if you were to read "In the name…" than you’d discover that his anti-US and NATO nonesense was and remains irrelevant.  Get it – pretty simple.  "Or maybe I’m stoned" myself – he he pretty clever and sooo funny – I’m sure it’ll impress your two-year old boyfriend.  Now I’m finished arguing with little punks with low IQs who can’t read and think that they know it all; go home little boy.   

            • Anonymous says:

              gordon, let’s play a little game since you’re so fond of travelling.  i wear an islamic garb and travel with the koran in my hand throughout the caribbean, north america, europe, and australia.  you on the other hand, wear a prominent across your chest and travel with the bible in your hands to one of the following places:  (a) saudi arabia  (b) sudan  (c) afghanistan  (d) pakistan    who do you think is most like to return?  ummhh?

              • anon says:

                Does the Muslims visit include a trip to the Deputy Premier’s house? definitely the Christian will be safer.

      • Anonymous says:

        what is the ‘babaric religion’ that endorses the us and nato bombings of villages in Iraq and Afghanistan?

        how can a religion endorse the us and nato?

      • noname says:

        Gordon, your comments are usually right on the mark;  this one, however, is far off to the left.  in times of war, civilian casualties are unavoidable. neither the US or NATO endorse the indiscriminate killing of civilians – many of the civilians who die, do so as a result of 1. being caught in the middle of two warring sides 2. being used as human shields by the taliban or al qaeda 3. being executed by the taliban or al qaeda 4. mistakes made by the US and its allies  i find it reprehensible that you would equate the barbaric practice of stoning a woman for adultery (or being raped but charged with adultery), with accidental acts of war…       

  3. Anon says:

    This is common practice in Somalia – there have been many such cases over the years.  For instance, a child of 13 was stoned to death in 2008 for alleged adultery when in actual fact, it seems she was raped by three men.  If CNS will permit, here are some links:

    They also amputate the limbs of those they allege to be thieves:



  4. anon says:

    But  isn’t this written in the bible as what should be done?

    Leviticus 20.10

    20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    just 3 lines off the CMA’s favourite

    20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    • Methusalem says:

      True, but if we were to take it all literally I would have been arrested a long time ago for ‘loving my neighbour as myself’

    • Anonymous says:

      She was divorced and he was single!

    • Anonymous says:

      Dear 13:27

      Erm.yes.but in the original hebrew…er aramaic…er greek it makes it clear that when it says put to death it….er means…er a christian death which means… er….a denial of the lord… er……

      I mean…erm…"abomination" means er…something to be "abominated" which as is well known means…as is well recognised in biblical exegesis..ahem…"frowned upon".

      Thank you for letting me help you in this way.

      • Anonymous says:

        err OK

        Leviticus 20.27 A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

        mmm seems it means stoned with stones, seems pretty clear on the matter.

        so errm seems a bit beyond frowning on someone

        Thank you for letting me enlighten you, may it be your first step to Nirvana

    • Anonymous says:

      you are correct, the bible, mainly the old testmanet, is filled with every sin and hypocrisy imaginable.

      However the teachings of jesus in the new testmanent are the cornerstone of christianity and you will not find anything anything wrong with the actual teachings of jesus.

  5. Anonymous says:

    how can … i can’t find the words … this is maddness

    • Pale Rider says:

      "how can … i can’t find the words … this is maddness"


      No….This is ISLAM!!  Religion of Peace!! 

      • Anonymous says:

        "At least 20 people were killed in revenge attacks on Muslims in Nigeria yesterday as religious riots intensified a day after the country’s leading Anglican archbishop warned Muslims that they did not have a "monopoly on violence".

        The Christian retaliation came after a widely publicised statement by Archbishop Akinola, who heads the Christian Association of Nigeria, and warned that the Association might be unable to contain its "restive youths".

        Christian mobs with machetes and guns roamed the streets of the mainly Christian city of Onitsha, in the south-east"



        • O'Really says:

          Violence in the name of religion, an age old problem. But I hope you are not looking to suggest that this incident in any way justifies or diminishes the horror detailed in the article. Two horrific wrongs do not make a right.

        • Anonymous says:

          the difference is the christian youths are not killing due to the religious beliefs…. however what happened to the woman was because of islamic beliefs and teachings….

          both are terrible acts which as a christian i condemn 100%…. what about you?

        • Anonymous says:

          If you had bothered to read the first sentence, you would have noted that these attacks were in "revenge"…   If you bothered to dig any further, you would note that Christians are under siege in virtually every single country in the Muslim world, the victims of countless acts of brutality and murder that are widespread and systematic.