I am just catching up with some TV programmes recorded earlier in the week, including Channel 4's The Koran. I haven't seen all of this, but it seems a bit of a whitewash, though good in parts.

When asked about Islam's barbaric punishments - flogging, amputation, stoning - Islam apologists repeatedly claim that the evidence requirements are so strict that, in practice, such punishments are rarely carried out. In that case, I ask with Infidel curiosity, what is the point of them?

Sheikh Tayser Rajat Al Tamimi, "Supreme Judge of the Islamic Courts in Palestine", trots out the same line about strict evidence requirements. But he rather shoots himself in the foot:

"Since the inception of Islam until today, the number of times that adulterers have received the full punishment can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The same goes for amputation."

On the other hand...