Iranian woman faces death by stoning

[khib70]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty

Utter, inexcusable barbarism. Under Sharia law the size of stones must be carefully chosen to be large enough to cause injury, but not large enough to kill the victim in one or two strikes. Victims can take half an hour or more to die.

Let's hope her son and daughter - who are extremely brave people to speak out, given the nature of the Iranian regime - are successful in their campaign to stop this unspeakable act of mediaeval sadism. Unfortunately, I fear the worst.

More on this case here:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/07/07/iran-prevent-woman-s-execution-adultery

[lyonhibs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty

Utter, inexcusable barbarism. Under Sharia law the size of stones must be carefully chosen to be large enough to cause injury, but not large enough to kill the victim in one or two strikes. Victims can take half an hour or more to die.

Let's hope her son and daughter - who are extremely brave people to speak out, given the nature of the Iranian regime - are successful in their campaign to stop this unspeakable act of mediaeval sadism. Unfortunately, I fear the worst.

More on this case here:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/07/07/iran-prevent-woman-s-execution-adultery

Unreal isn't it?? I'm normally cautious of those in the West getting all judgemental and applying what is considered "normal" in our society and legal system to completely different cultures, as if "our" way was - de facto - "better" than theirs.

However, in the case of stoning to death, I can say unreservedly that the Iranian court who passed the sentence, and those who take part in it - should it come to pass - are sub-human animals.

Quite unbelievable that Iranian society's approach to women and criminal justice remains so incredibly barbaric. I mean, there's even different rules for the stoning "procedure"!! - up to the neck for women, up to the waist for men.

Giving a better - if still extremely remote - chance of men to survive, but basically condeming the women to a horrid, inhumane death.

:bitchy: :bitchy:

[Ritchie]

disgusting way of life.

reminds me of the story of the 13 year old girl in somalia who got raped by 3 men.
she reported it to the militia who were running the place and they charged her with the same thing as the lady in iran..... the result, she got stoned to death.

none of the rapist were charged!!! :grr:

[Woody1985]

Stoning is ridiculous.

In my understanding, Sharia Law is based on the Muslim religion which would seem to be sexist and divisive yet it is still acceptable to billions of people. Mental.

These clowns need to move out of the dark ages.

[Ally]

"Under Iranian sharia law, the sentenced individual is buried up to the neck (or to the waist in the case of men), and those attending the public execution are called upon to throw stones. If the convicted person manages to free themselves from the hole, the death sentence is commuted"

Horrendous, how this kind of 'justice' can still occur is beyond me.

[CropleyWasGod]

Stoning is ridiculous.

In my understanding, Sharia Law is based on the Muslim religion which would seem to be sexist and divisive yet it is still acceptable to billions of people. Mental.

These clowns need to move out of the dark ages.

Given that Islam is, arguably, 700 years younger than Christianity, it can also be argued that its development is indeed still in the "medieval" stage. Think on what "Christians" were up to 700 (even 300) years ago, and maybe one can put some historical perspective on it.

The other point I would make is that Sharia is practised by those at the fundamentalist end of Islam. A minority..... sizeable, I admit, but still a minority. For every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be thousands who abhor it.

For the record, these are not defences, merely observations.

[khib70]

Some good news this morning. Apparently the Iranian regime has backed down and this lady will not be stoned to death. However she may still be hanged - for alleged adultery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10565103.stm

This, after all, is the level of intellectual sophistication we are dealing with here....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8631775.stm

[heretoday]

The thing is Iran has the potential to be a huge power for good in the middle east. The country has a long and fascinating culture.

I'm told by those who have been there that things are changing and opening up - slowly.

[CropleyWasGod]

The thing is Iran has the potential to be a huge power for good in the middle east. The country has a long and fascinating culture.

I'm told by those who have been there that things are changing and opening up - slowly.

There is an argument that slow change is preferable to overnight widespread change. For example, the pace of the sweeping changes in the Soviet Union led to many social problems that might have been eased had there been a slower transition. Cuba, for example, has recognised this and is easing its way through reforms at a much more controlled rate.

Apart from anything else, I am sure there is a feeling within Iran and the like that says "why should we change, just because the West says it's wrong?". That means that there will always be an emotional resistance to change.

[khib70]

Given that Islam is, arguably, 700 years younger than Christianity, it can also be argued that its development is indeed still in the "medieval" stage. Think on what "Christians" were up to 700 (even 300) years ago, and maybe one can put some historical perspective on it.

The other point I would make is that Sharia is practised by those at the fundamentalist end of Islam. A minority..... sizeable, I admit, but still a minority. For every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be thousands who abhor it.

For the record, these are not defences, merely observations.


The thing is Iran has the potential to be a huge power for good in the middle east. The country has a long and fascinating culture.

I'm told by those who have been there that things are changing and opening up - slowly.


There is an argument that slow change is preferable to overnight widespread change. For example, the pace of the sweeping changes in the Soviet Union led to many social problems that might have been eased had there been a slower transition. Cuba, for example, has recognised this and is easing its way through reforms at a much more controlled rate.

Apart from anything else, I am sure there is a feeling within Iran and the like that says "why should we change, just because the West says it's wrong?". That means that there will always be an emotional resistance to change.

All of this is true. Iran has a culture which predates Christianity and Islam by thousands of years. By its very size it can never be anything but ifluential in the Middle East. Unfortunately, under its present c lerical leadership, with their puppet president, that's not a very good influence.

CWG is right to point out that Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity, although it has strong scriptural links to both Christianity and Judaism. However, it won't progress backwards. Setting your standard by mediaeval laws and customs (few of which are prescribed in the Koran, by the way, any more than priestly celibacy or papal infallibility have any biblical justification), is to deny even the possibility of progress.

The Iranian people have already courageously made their point about the theocracy and their rigged elections. As with the fall of Communism, there is only so long a dictatorship can survive large and increasing popular dissent and civil disobedience.

The Iranian people have survived the repressive regimes of the Shah, and for the last thirty years, the Ayatollahs. They have outlived the first, and will outlast the second.

[hibsbollah]

All of this is true. Iran has a culture which predates Christianity and Islam by thousands of years. By its very size it can never be anything but ifluential in the Middle East. Unfortunately, under its present c lerical leadership, with their puppet president, that's not a very good influence.

CWG is right to point out that Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity, although it has strong scriptural links to both Christianity and Judaism. However, it won't progress backwards. Setting your standard by mediaeval laws and customs (few of which are prescribed in the Koran, by the way, any more than priestly celibacy or papal infallibility have any biblical justification), is to deny even the possibility of progress.

The Iranian people have already courageously made their point about the theocracy and their rigged elections. As with the fall of Communism, there is only so long a dictatorship can survive large and increasing popular dissent and civil disobedience.

The Iranian people have survived the repressive regimes of the Shah, and for the last thirty years, the Ayatollahs. They have outlived the first, and will outlast the second.

I don't have much to add to that:agree:

Iran is changing and the current Government isnt representative of Iranian society. Hopefully this is the last gasp of clerical fundamentalism and the start of something new.

[Dinkydoo]

Disgusting story but sadly not shocking.

It makes one wonder when polititions and the like come out with the "Well, if it save's one innocent person's life then surely it's worth it..." if this could be applied to an outlaw of all organised religion......?

Although I appreciate that an idea such as this has the potential to cause a lot more problems; it's just a thought.

[CropleyWasGod]

Disgusting story but sadly not shocking.

It makes one wonder when polititions and the like come out with the "Well, if it save's one innocent person's life then surely it's worth it..." if this could be applied to an outlaw of all organised religion......?

Although I appreciate that an idea such as this has the potential to cause a lot more problems; it's just a thought.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post... are you suggesting that all organised religion might be outlawed?

[Mibbes Aye]

I think we struggle to look at Iran objectively, and there's an interesting debate (another thread) to be had about how the discourse about Iran has been established in the West.

While vesting authority in Islamic jurists and ascribing sovereignty to belonging only to "God" doesn't sit comfortably with our ideas of democracy, there is an argument that the Iranian constitution has more than a superficial resemblance to Western ideas of a 'social contract' that underpin our liberal democracies.

The Shia faith, on a conceptual level, bears comparison to liberalism when it is at its most abstract or philosophical. On that basis, I think it's possible to look at it as an 'idea' in one sense, while 'people's understanding of the idea' exists in another sense. The first sense allows faith to exist almost as a minimalist influence rather than an ideology. The second sense (unfortunately to my mind and most others on here I suspect) allows for the state to kill people, in cruel ways for things we feel aren't remotely justifiable.

[Dinkydoo]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post... are you suggesting that all organised religion might be outlawed?


Yes, just as a thought though - or even to put a ban on governments using certain religious views (that to many are outdated) as a basis for the "laws of the land" (such stoning being an acceptable punishment).

The practicalities of such a move maybe far too much for any society that has adopted this as a way of life for centuries to handle IMO; potentially causing more grief that it's worth.

I was really just typing my thoughts after reading the posted article......there must be sopmething that could be done to prevent the needless loss of life caused by countries holding extreme religious views.

[(((Fergus)))]

Given that Islam is, arguably, 700 years younger than Christianity, it can also be argued that its development is indeed still in the "medieval" stage. Think on what "Christians" were up to 700 (even 300) years ago, and maybe one can put some historical perspective on it.

The other point I would make is that Sharia is practised by those at the fundamentalist end of Islam. A minority..... sizeable, I admit, but still a minority. For every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be thousands who abhor it.

For the record, these are not defences, merely observations.

The figures I've seen quoted are 10-15% per cent support for full implementation of Sharia law, i.e., for every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be tens who abhor it (assuming all the 85-90% go as far as "abhoring" it, which is debatable).

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes, just as a thought though - or even to put a ban on governments using certain religious views (that to many are outdated) as a basis for the "laws of the land" (such stoning being an acceptable punishment).

The practicalities of such a move maybe far too much for any society that has adopted this as a way of life for centuries to handle IMO; potentially causing more grief that it's worth.

I was really just typing my thoughts after reading the posted article......there must be sopmething that could be done to prevent the needless loss of life caused by countries holding extreme religious views.

Like what we done in Afghanistan? :cool2:

[CropleyWasGod]

The figures I've seen quoted are 10-15% per cent support for full implementation of Sharia law, i.e., for every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be tens who abhor it (assuming all the 85-90% go as far as "abhoring" it, which is debatable).

Interesting. Where did you read it?

[Dinkydoo]

Like what we done in Afghanistan? :cool2:

No....dear god no :bitchy::faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

No....dear god no :bitchy::faf:

Sorry, I was beinbg mischievous.

TBF, your ideas, although having a basis of good sense, are a non-starter. There have been many attempts by the State over the centuries to ban or suppress religion (the most recent widespread examples being the Soviet Bloc and China). None have succeeded to any great degree or for any great length of time.

The truth is that religion.... in all its forms... has more than enough power to resist any such move. It has power in emotional terms, in financial terms, and in political terms.

There is also a fundamental issue at play here.... who would be the judge? What is "reasonable"? What is "fair"? Right away, there are different versions of "justice" espoused in Mecca, in Rome, in Tibet. Which one is right, and why should the others accept that version?

That goes down the road that societies have been down countless times over the centuries... ie to religious wars.

[(((Fergus)))]

Given that Islam is, arguably, 700 years younger than Christianity, it can also be argued that its development is indeed still in the "medieval" stage. Think on what "Christians" were up to 700 (even 300) years ago, and maybe one can put some historical perspective on it.

The other point I would make is that Sharia is practised by those at the fundamentalist end of Islam. A minority..... sizeable, I admit, but still a minority. For every Muslim who believes in its principles, there will be thousands who abhor it.

For the record, these are not defences, merely observations.


Interesting. Where did you read it?

The most (in)famous source is Daniel Pipes http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3658 but I've seen similar figures quoted by anti-Israel/pro-Islam bloggers.

It also stands to reason: if it was a case of 1 in 10,000, 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 100, would it really be an issue? One in 10 is a conservative estimate IMO, i.e., there is also a level of tacit support or at least zero resistance - especially once it has been implemented (through force) as in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Gaza.

[CropleyWasGod]

The most (in)famous source is Daniel Pipes http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3658 but I've seen similar figures quoted by anti-Israel/pro-Islam bloggers.

It also stands to reason: if it was a case of 1 in 10,000, 1 in 1,000 or even 1 in 100, would it really be an issue? One in 10 is a conservative estimate IMO, i.e., there is also a level of tacit support or at least zero resistance - especially once it has been implemented (through force) as in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Gaza.

Thanks for that.

Zero resistance does not, of course, mean support.... but I take your point.

I would be interested in knowing to what extent Muslims in "more developed" (and I use that judgemental phrase with my tongue in my cheek!) countries support Sharia. I don't mean the Western, traditionally Christian, countries,..... one would presume there to be little support there... but those Muslim countries who are less strident about the influence of Islam.

Tunisia, for example, has the equal rights of women enshrined in its constitution. I doubt that there is a significant level of support there.

[Dinkydoo]

Sorry, I was beinbg mischievous..

It's OK, my post was crying out for it to be honest!


TBF, your ideas, although having a basis of good sense, are a non-starter. There have been many attempts by the State over the centuries to ban or suppress religion (the most recent widespread examples being the Soviet Bloc and China). None have succeeded to any great degree or for any great length of time.

The truth is that religion.... in all its forms... has more than enough power to resist any such move. It has power in emotional terms, in financial terms, and in political terms...

This is basically what I meant by saying, it may be more hassle than it's worth - or words to that effect.


There is also a fundamental issue at play here.... who would be the judge? What is "reasonable"? What is "fair"? Right away, there are different versions of "justice" espoused in Mecca, in Rome, in Tibet. Which one is right, and why should the others accept that version?

That goes down the road that societies have been down countless times over the centuries... ie to religious wars.

Agreed, who is to say that our perception of "right and wrong" is the correct one..........and is forcing people to act a certain way, think a certain way hell, live a certain way not one of the fundamental aspects of these societies what we set out to abolish in the first place - similar to the freedom fighter becoming the terrorist, but in a different context.

It's a very, very, very complex issue but one that the 'rest of the world' shouldn't, can't sit back and ignore because of the challenges that finding a solution brings.

As I said, I was merley thinking aloud...wait typing aloud...you know what I mean. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

How they going to kill her - get her to eat herself to death on Hula Hoops and Mini Heros?

I heard they were backward, but surely there's more effective ways of administering the death penalty? I'd do it myself and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

(ps the missus ex was Iranian, he is a good guy - we get fed quite a lot of propaganda about Iran that distorts the reality of what life is really like there. Not saying this story is made up, but we should remember that our government has its own reasons for painting a black picture of Iran.)

[Betty Boop]

How they going to kill her - get her to eat herself to death on Hula Hoops and Mini Heros?

I heard they were backward, but surely there's more effective ways of administering the death penalty? I'd do it myself and get a good night's sleep afterwards.

(ps the missus ex was Iranian, he is a good guy - we get fed quite a lot of propaganda about Iran that distorts the reality of what life is really like there. Not saying this story is made up, but we should remember that our government has its own reasons for painting a black picture of Iran.)

:agree: Rageh Omar's documentary 'Inside Iran' gives a good insight to life in Iran. A very good watch.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9161934809152225169#

[(((Fergus)))]

:agree: Rageh Omar's documentary 'Inside Iran' gives a good insight to life in Iran. A very good watch.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9161934809152225169#

Interesting video, especially the bit where Rageh has his article for the Iranian magazine "edited":

Rageh: "Drug addictions which are taboo in many muslim countries are dealt with openly but women cannot ride motorcycles"
Editor: "[...] this is a country where every motorcycle rider is a man."
Rule: don't suggest that men and women are not equal

Rageh: "Iranians are far more angry about the political situation in the country [...]"
Editor: "Iranians who are not satisfied with some situations in the society [...]"
Rule: don't suggest that anyone is against the government

Good old Rageh never once made a judgement about what he was seeing and hearing, even when he was stage-managed into praying alongside Ahmedinejad.

Meanwhile in Pakistan's tribal areas:

Friday, July 09, 2010

WAF outraged at jirga’s judgment of stoning to death

Staff Report

LAHORE: Women's Action Forum (WAF) is outraged at reports of yet another "judgement of stoning to death due to illicit relations", pronounced by a self-styled jirga convened in Kala Dhaka, wherein it was alleged that a man and a woman were seen walking together in a field in Madakhail.

WAF noted that Kala Dhaka was a Provincially Administered Tribal Area (PATA) until it was converted into a settled area and renamed 'Torghar' last week, after which it might be excused for demanding the writ of the state, the pronouncements of the judiciary, and the provincial law enforcement system to be de jure and de facto functional.

WAF states that there appears to be no law enforcement and no heed paid to the higher judiciary (including the Supreme Court's) declaring jirgas and panchayats to be illegal parallel systems of "justice" and instructing the respective federal and provincial governments to eradicate them, and to punish those who participate in them.