Top Iranian official defends stoning of adulterer

[democratic]

Source: Middle East Times

TEHRAN -- A top Iranian official Sunday defended the use of execution by stoning after a sentence was carried out on an adulterer, saying the punishment was legal and in line with Iran's rights commitments.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, the head of the Iranian judiciary's human rights committee, said the judiciary supported the principle of stoning after confirmation last week of the stoning sparked international condemnation.

"Stoning is based on Islamic Sharia law and it is not contrary to any of our international obligations," Larijani was quoted as saying by state television's Web site.

A stoning sentence involves members of the public hurling rocks at the convict who is buried up to his waist in earth.

Read more: http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070715-083918-7128r

[YDogg]

1. Sen. Vitter? Are you there?

[still_one]

2. A similar incident occurred in Iraq, where a girls parents threw their daughter to a mob

because she had an affair, and the mob stoned her, while people used their cell phone camera's to record it, while the police just stood around and did nothing

What are we doing in this part of the world?

[maxsolomon]

42. are "WE" iranians?

nope, we're not doing shit in iran - they're doing it to themselves in their islamic paradise.

they've been free from the tentacles of the great satan since 1979.

[LiberalArkie]

3. Just Mosaic law...

[barb162]

15. Bull; Don't confuse Mosaic law with Sharia

Nobody practices stoning today in the Jewish tradition.

It's like saying capitalism is communism.

[daleo]

23. Granted, Jews and Christians don't practice stoning anymore

But they really should, if they are biblical literalists, according to Leviticus:

13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,


14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.


16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/lev025.htm

We all know there's lots more where that came from. Fortunately, we in the west don't really take this stuff seriously anymore. Personally, I am glad we have developed the cultural maturity to ignore those parts of our holy books that recommend abhorrent punishment for minor matters. I hope those more backward elements of Islam will eventually do so too.

[LanternWaste]

37. A lot of the Mosaic law was directed only towards the priesthood...

A LOT of the Mosaic law was directed only towards the priesthood (e.g, the Tribe of Levi-- hence the book Leviticus), not towards all the tribes of Israel (or the Gentiles).

I'm the first to admit that it can be difficult sometimes figuring out which law is directed at all mankind, which law is directed at the Israeli's and which laws are directed towards the Levites only as we are forced to infer in many instances, but it is rather enlightening at the end of the day.

[daleo]

39. I will confess, I don't "get this" about conventional religion

I mean, why would God only want Levites to stone their blasphemers, but not the other tribes? And why was the God who created the entire universe so disinterested in Gentiles for so long? I know, there's no really satisfying answer to these questions.

That's why I have a hard time with the idea that one religion is more "barbaric" than another (i.e. Islam vs Christianity or Judaism, as the case would usually be put in the West). The practices of the various religions may have evolved, but the admonitions in the respective "good books" don't seem to be substantially different - they are often quite barbaric.

The differences seem to have more to do with the later secular culture than the religions themselves.

For the record, I believe religions do have some good points, if you can avoid the bad points, which are numerous.

[LanternWaste]

41. If you ever get the inclination...

If you ever get the inclination, C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "Mere Christianity" that addresses the very questions you asked.

And since his writings are geared towards Apologetics rather than ministry, you won't get the usual, "...believe what I say or you;re going to hell" kind of stuff that's all to damned common these days.

Anyway, for what it's worth and all that...

[ProudDad]

44. Follow the money

All organized religion is about controlling the masses so that they can be fleeced by the upper class...

Whatever particular line of bullshit they use to exercise and maintain that control is irrelevant...

Follow the Money...

In the the U.S. it's some ephemeral BS called "Christianity". They make it up as they go along using a political text written 400 years after the death of their "savior" and re-written as pro-monarch propaganda during the reign of King James of England.

In Iran, it's another fairy tale made up about a man who brutally conquered most of his "country" back in the 600's and his alleged talks with the emissary of some deity he called allah about how people must act...

In Israel it was some guy speaking out of a burning bush, advising them against eating shellfish in the desert (not bad advice), cutting off part of their penises to join his cult, etc.

It's all FOMA as Kurt Vonnegut would say... Foma all of it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokononist


Piss on all religions.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Where are the defenders of the Iranian regime?

Perhaps they'll be posting explanations and exculpations of this.

[dicknbush]

5. There busy defending Saudi Arabia which is about to behead a 19 year old girl ...

Because a baby died in her care. Of course they are our good friends and sell us lots of oil so what the heck. A beheading here or there is not going to really mnake a difference is it?

[DavidDvorkin]

6. That would make as much sense as defening Iran

Although I don't remember seeing any defenders of Saudi Arabia on DU.

[struggle4progress]

20. I don't remember seeing any enthusiasts for theocratic states here.

But perhaps you misunderstood when somebody expressed dismay that the war-mongers wanted to drop bombs on yet another country?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. If by "defenders of the Iranian regime" you mean "people who don't want Iran to be invaded"

then I am one.

Of course, the conflation of the two concepts is something only people with bad intentions would do.

Why don't I read news about the many garish executions and mutilations that take place in Saudi Arabia?

[libertypirate]

7. You all know this is propaganda....

Does this have anything to do with this?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLaColVYu5LA&refer=home

The same day the Senate took that lame joementum vote on how Iran is committing acts of war against the United States.

...
July 13 (Bloomberg) -- Iran asked Japanese refiners to switch to the yen to pay for all crude oil purchases, after Iran's central bank said it is reducing holdings of the U.S. dollar.

Iran wants yen-based transactions ``for any/all of your forthcoming Iranian crude oil liftings,'' according to a letter sent to Japanese refiners that was signed by Ali A. Arshi, general manager of crude oil marketing and exports in Tehran at the National Iranian Oil Co. The request is for all shipments ``effective immediately,'' according to the letter, dated July 10 and obtained by Bloomberg News.
...

And is this a reason to start a war?

It is hard to empathize with people you dehumanize.

[barb162]

16. That's not so. Stoning, unfortunately ,is practiced in Iran.

You might want to look at Amnesty International or HRW type sites

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE130632005
Iran: Death Sentences of juvenile offenders and stoning sentences continue to be passed
Press release, 10/20/2005


http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130832007
9 July 2007
Iran: Amnesty International outraged at reported stoning to death and fears for victim’s co-accused

[The Stranger]

27. Barb, it is being disseminated for propaganda purposes, and you know it.

This is coincident with Dick Cheney and the Neocon Brotherhood's plans to invade Iran.

[barb162]

31. Is the Mideast Times owned by Bush/Cheney interests?

I don't think so. BTW if you look at AI reports on Iran prior to Bushco, you won't find anything positive there.

[The Stranger]

33. The story likely did not originate -- nor cease being disseminated -- by the Mideast Times.

And just because nothing about Iran that is "positive" may be found is no reason to foment war (or overlook propaganda seeking war) jeopardizing hundreds of thousands of innocents.

[barb162]

35. You're talking war but there is just about no US army left.

I think there won't be war. I hear no talk of a draft either. Bushco, with the extremely low popularity ratings, can beat the drums all they want; where's the money coming from? Congress? I think not. Not after the gargantuan screwup over Iraq.

[Socal31]

18. If this is just propoganda,

please show us the "true translation", or what "really" happened.

The people who defend global bad-behavior (Iran, Saudi, etc) just because we have our own current skeletons, are starting to make me quite sick.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Yes

Many governments practice horrible policies. This does not mean that we should go to war with them. But it also doesn't mean that the horrible policies are OK.

[The Stranger]

28. Then go ahead and get sick.

Because this is being disseminated conincident with Dick Cheney and the Neocon Brotherhood's campaign to attack (illegally) Iran.

Another illegal war is all that this is about. The Neocons don't give a fuck about a single Iranian. You know that and I know that.

[The Magistrate]

38. That Is Still No Good Excuse, Sir

For covering up this sort of thing with apologias, or trying to convince people to turn their eyes from it. When people on the left do not denounce this sort of thing, we are viewed by most in the middle as hypocrites, without any real commitment to human rights, and our criticisms of problems here are devalued as mere political posturings covering an agenda of dislike or even hate for our own country and culture.

[LanternWaste]

43. I'm afraid I feel compelled to disagree...

"Conincident with Dick Cheney and the Neocon Brotherhood's campaign to attack (illegally) Iran."

I'm afraid I feel compelled to disagree. As I read as many Eastern European and Mid-East daily papers as I can, this is not out of left field or a reporting aberration. Regardless of whether we in the US choose to read and remember these things is another story, but the stories are out there, have been out there and most likely will be out there for some time.

[struggle4progress]

21. Iran: Prevent Stoning of Condemned Mother

Government Should Revoke Laws That Permit Execution by Stoning

(Washington, DC, July 11, 2007) – Iran’s top Judiciary official must act immediately to prevent the execution by stoning of Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, a 43-year-old mother of three, Human Rights Watch said today. ~snip~

Kiani and Ebrahimi were convicted of adultery 11 years ago and sentenced to death by stoning by Branch 1 of the Criminal Court in Takistan, a city in the north central province of Ghazvin. On June 20, 2007, Ayatollah Shahrudi issued a written order staying the execution, which had been scheduled for the following day. Previously, in 2002, he had ordered a moratorium on executions by stoning to Iran’s judges.

Despite the written stay of execution and the 2002 moratorium order, officials stoned Kiani on July 5 in Aghche-kand, a small village near Takistan.

“Unless Iran excises stoning from the penal code, officials will feel free to impose such sentences and then carry them out,” Stork said. ~snip~

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/11/iran16378.htm


There's more than one thing going on here ...

[Psephos]

25. You can't condemn stoning?

Go far enough left and you end up on the far right. It's a circular continuum.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of us who think this is vicious cruelty of the highest order, and deserves stinging condemnation and international pressure WITHOUT war.

[The Stranger]

29. You know this isn't about "condemning stoning." That accusation is specious.

This is about a propaganda war preceding another illegal invasion.

[Psephos]

47. Actually, it is about condemning stoning

You're conflating it with invasion plans. They are separate issues. When you tie them together, the effect is to squelch protest about brutality. Such protest, codified as "world opinion," acts to restrain the self-righteous theocrats in charge of such abominations.

No one here is advocating a war. Do you not see that looking the other way when medieval cruelties such as stoning and other Shari'a punishments continue emboldens their practitioners to enlarge their practices? Over time, this seems to me to make a future war more likely, as the schism between cultures widens. Be careful of unintended consequences.

I find it hard to believe that on a progressive board I find myself defending the criticism of barbarism and cruelty.

[ProudDad]

45. It was a good enough reason to invade Iraq

One of Saddam's greatest sins was his threat to selling Iraqi oil for Euros instead of Dollars.

If the petro-economy switches to Yen and/or Euros the house of cards laughingly referred to as the "U.S. economy" will fold...

Our capitalist masters can't have that...

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I doubt this is propaganda, and I refuse to submit to that sort

of black and white thinking.

In order to think there is no way we should be beating the drums with war in Iran, one doesn't have to subscribe to the idea that they do not do and say absolutely horrible things.

I won't put human rights and women's rights on the back burner in order to make Iran look better than it is. That's just not smart, or right.

And that doesn't mean I support the administration's latest adventure, either.

[kurth]

8. "None of the treaties on human rights has any opposition to stoning"

or boiling people to death, or drawing and quartering...

Fucking savages.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

13. At least a couple of major treaties have exceptions to them ...

essentially saying that if they contradict shari'a, shari'a wins. Therefore since the UN and its member states have agreed to allow shari'a to count as human rights, and shari'a includes stoning for adultery, the UN and its member states have said 'ok'.

It was the price of getting good buy-in on the treaties and avoiding the dreaded word 'Islamophobe'.

[struggle4progress]

22. Please cite whatever treaties you mean by name and provide links for such assertions

[Igel]

32. You're right.

When I see the "Declaration of Human Rights" in print--as in Islamic sources--I think of the UN's critter, even though I once heard about its Islamic counterpart. Many Muslim countries have rejected the UN's treaty as a bit of ethnocentric gibberish, and have their own *Cairo* Declaration of Human Rights that not only accommodates but is based on Islam.

And they issue constant calls for the UN to not be Judeo-Christian in religion and ethnocentric.

[The Stranger]

34. CITATION PLEASE

[The Stranger]

30. You really, really, really need to provide a citation to that.

Cite to the specific treaty, paragraph, page and line number.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Vitter?

[barb162]

14. What is this object you have pictured?

[Orsino]

10. What kind of "rights commitments" allow for torturing people to death? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

11. This is the kind of fun you get when you let authoritarians and theocratic nutjobs run your gov't.

Great.

[barb162]

17. What a sick thug.

[cureautismnow]

19. This should dispel the notion that we have a monopoly on barbarism. n/t

[libodem]

24. Stoning is Barbaric

What a horrible death. Iran is not the only country that does it. I think there was a recent stoning in Afghanistan, and we are supposed to be in charge of that country. Are they out of their burkas? But noooooo. And now that Iraq has all this Democracy and every Iraq man is an Insurgent the woman run for the borders so they may become sex industry workers. Any of their fathers or brothers could legally off them at any time. Yep, let's start beating the war drums about 'human Rights abuses Iran' stoning way ward girls. Same rhetoric took place before we went into Iraq. The rape rooms and torture chambers. Any ex-patriot was an expert about Iraq's WMD's. Nobody likes stoning or a country that permits it. But we don't need to take over the government and install a new Shaw. A nice mean Shaw who will do at least as bad as; stone all the Political Revolutionaries, and naughtie girls. Remember when being a Revolutionary meant being a Patriot?

[ShortnFiery]

40. Here we go again ...

Same seemingly recycled Pentagon PsyOps blessed stuff complements of democratic ... different day.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. :eyes: