Posted on 07/13/2007 10:27:35 PM PDT by freedom44
July 13, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The United Nations, Western governments, and human-rights groups have strongly condemned the stoning of an alleged adulterer that was carried out in Iran last week.
Meanwhile, reports from Iran say the country's judiciary has launched a probe into the judge who ordered that Jafar Kiani be stoned to death.
The grim sentence of Jafar Kiani has prompted a wave of international condemnation and also reactions by human-rights activists and others inside Iran.
Rights activists believe that in order to prevent such incidents in the future and to root out stoning in Iran the sentence should be removed from Iranian laws.
Kiani was stoned to death on July 5 in a small village in northern Iran. He had been convicted of adultery and had spent the past 11 years in prison.
UN Condemnation
Many have described his stoning as "inhumane" and "barbaric."
UN human rights chief Louise Arbour condemned the execution, saying that "stoning is in clear violation of international law." She called on Iran to stop the stoning of Kiani's partner, Mokarameh Ebrahimi, who is reportedly in jail with the couple's two children.
A top dissident cleric in Iran told Radio Farda that Kiani's stoning was carried out against Islamic principles.
According to Islamic laws applied in Iran, the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. It is allowed to be proved through evidence such as a confession or a "judge's knowledge."
Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who is a prominent Iranian source of emulation, said in a written statement faxed in response to an inquiry by Radio Farda that adultery is very difficult to prove under Islamic laws. He says adultery can be proven only if it is witnessed by four people who had seen the act with their own eyes, adding that such a thing is almost impossible.
Damaging Islam's Reputation?
Montazeri also writes that if the accused retracts his or her confession then that person should be able to go free.
He adds that if "at a certain time and location" the implementation of the sentence would damage Islam's reputation then it should be prevented. The dissident ayatollah added that, in fact, stoning sentences are a tool to create fear and prevent people from committing sin.
Kiani's stoning was carried out despite a reported 2002 moratorium on stoning by the head of Iran's judiciary, Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi.
His execution also came two weeks after international and domestic pressure made local officials delay carrying out the sentence against him and his partner, Ebrahimi.
Ebrahimi's sentence has reportedly been suspended.
Judge Investigated
On July 11, Iran's ISNA news agency quoted an unnamed official from the judiciary as saying that the judges' disciplinary court will investigate the action carried out by the local judge, which was contrary to the order of judiciary chief Shahrudi.
Rights activists believe that in order to prevent such incidents in the future and to root out stoning in Iran the sentence should be removed from Iranian laws.
Among them is Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who in an interview with Radio Farda expressed serious concern over the stoning of Kiani.
"We've been telling the judiciary for years now that if the respected head of the judiciary is against carrying out stoning sentences then the solution is very simple: he should write two sentences, propose it as a law to the parliament and -- since the parliament is totally on his side -- it will adopt it," she said.
But the judiciary has so far ignored such demands and activists say in the past five years stoning sentences have been issued to alleged adulterers. One case of a stoning of a man and a woman was reported in 2006.
Online Reaction
Kiani's stoning has also led to strong reactions among visitors to the Radio Farda website.
Mohammad Bagher Abbasi from Bushehr writes that proving that adultery has taken place is "impossible" under Islamic laws. Therefore, he said, whenever someone is executed by stoning there should be no doubt that Islam was not respected.
Mohammad from Esfahan believes that the implementation of Islamic sentences can prevent evil and mischief.
An unnamed visitor has written that Kiani's stoning proves that Iranian "mullahs" are worse than Taliban members and that if they are not confronted they could ban women from studying.
Kamran from Tehran describes stoning as inhumane and cruel, yet he adds that the leaders of Iran should be stoned because he believes "they are infected with sin."
Most of the visitors have, however, written in their postings that the practice of stoning does not belong in today's world.
Adultery a capital offense?
Maybe it’s actually your brain, not your spleen, that’s exploded.
“stoning a true adulterer is fine.”
So, Henry Hyde (40 years ago) and Newt Gingrich (10 years ago) and — I believe — Barry Goldwater many years ago, all should have been stoned.
I think you’re stoned, sir or ma’am. You’re certainly a cretinous, disgusting embarrassment.
The religion of piss.
Your eloquent wit doth astound and confound.
Perchance, it is accompanied by an arguement? Maybe even a point or two?
Especially given how many of the ilk around here will rise to give a standing ovation everytime person X kills person Y who was trying to steal item Z.
People these days own some fine things, but I've never seen a kid's life or a mother's life destroyed/devasted/completely ruined by someone stealing a wallet or an SUV, etc., although I've seen that happen plenty of times when whomever decided that their unbreakable vows to dedicate their life to another person were actually not so unbreakable afterall.
For that matter, nobody requires you to promise your life to another person. You can just shack up for all I care. But if you do make the vow, then I say that life is owed one way or the other. Disagree if you like... it's not as though I will ever be authoring a successful law to the effect. The only real outcome this world will ever see of my opinion is that I will hold my own vows in greater sanctity than my own life.
Chivalry, I think it used to be called....
Not so much for His son. "Let he who is without sin ..."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your attempt to implicate everybody on this thread as hypocrites by suggesting they would all approve of death for theft, but not for murder, is laughable.
Surely you can backpedal better than that.
BTW - your writing style is not merely as eloquent and impressive as you think. Combined with what you have chosen to call an “alternate view,” it makes you look silly. In fact, I debated typing this. See my tagline.
I meant to say “not for adultury..”
*yawn* I would say the strawman does not become you, but perhaps it does?
You might as well have followed your inclinations to stay out of the debate, seeing as you evidently were not able to comprehend what it is about. As far as I am involved, you are the very first person to even make 'murder' a contention. The actual debate to which your reponded, in regard to which you seem to have been unable to decipher, was about the merit of capital punishment with regard to adultery. (not murder)
And, while I do commend for its sheer originality your startlingly brilliant tactic of putting words in mouth, I did not ever imply hypocrisy in anyone other than those temporary opponents here who would react in arms to my prescription of punitive remedy for the offense of adultery when the same prescription has been made by countless others for less severe offenses... and I will surely eat my words if any of them (including yourself) can present an example of where they reacted similarly to their reaction here.
For that matter, I have not even argued that it is wrong to distinguish between the cases.. I have only made the very reasonable observation that outcry over the one and not the other begs of irrationality.
For your part, you seem to join of the crowd of individuals who cannot tolerate someone to have a variant opinion without projecting venomous assertions on their personal character.
Surely you can backpedal better than that.
To "backpedal," since you do not appear to be acquainted with its definition, is "to retreat from or reverse one's previous stand on any matter." If I had, in the course of these scant few posts, changed my position, that would be an excellent word for you to use. But since it's fairly obvious to anyone that I have not changed from any position, and I think your intent is merely to attack me with an ad hominem, you would probably be better off calling me a moron or something. You could even be diverse about it.
BTW - your writing style is not merely as eloquent and impressive as you think. Combined with what you have chosen to call an “alternate view,” it makes you look silly. In fact, I debated typing this.
So let's see, you're essential points so far have been *a point I didn't make (nor anyone else) was laughable *some insult which I can only guess the meaning at owing to your abuse of the language * and, finally, you don't like the way I write.
I dare say, I have been refuted by the utmost of logic! Pardon if I must excuse myself to go weep at the scythe-like cut of your devastating rhetoric.
U r kidding right ?
So, I take it no one noticed the “real” reason why Amnesty Intl and the UN are actually speaking up about Iran’s islamic courts doing this?
The dude was accused and executed via stoning because he and “Ebrahimi” were homosexuals...
Well said...with one addition...
“People these days own some fine things, but I’ve never seen a kid’s life or a mother’s life OR A FATHER’S LIFE destroyed/devasted/completely ruined by someone stealing a wallet or an SUV, etc., although I’ve seen that happen plenty of times when whomever decided that their unbreakable vows to dedicate their life to another person were actually not so unbreakable afterall.”
We don’t live under that testament anymore. Repent of your
pharissee attitude as God will acommodate you with the same judgement as you judge others when you sin. And guess what eventually you will.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets...I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not one yod will by any means disapear from the Law”- JC, Matthew 5:17-18
Why not live by the Law by which all men will be judged? Just a thought.
Romans 5:18-20
18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification* leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It’s not up for you or I to pass sentence. Only God can do that. It’s in His capable hands and he doesn’t need anyone’s help.
You are right, unless either of us are judges, in which case we do pass sentence on matters of public law.
All I am saying is that a “Christian” nation ought to base its law on Divine Law or risk the reaping of Wrath the sowing of injustice necessarily compels.
What is someone perfect like you doing here, in a world full of sinners? Do you go to a church, synagogue, or whatever and pray to yourself, thanking God that you are not a sinner?
The core of our laws are based upon divine law. If we start stoning people to death that is a perversion of Christianity and Christ will harshly judge that society or individuals that perpetrate it. History is loaded with these type of abuses and those who perpetrated this kind of divine justice you advocate met horrific ends to their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.