Advertisement

Archive for Monday, September 6, 2010

Church: Stoning in Iran case ’brutal’

September 6, 2010

Advertisement

— The Vatican raised the possibility Sunday of using behind-the-scenes diplomacy to try to save the life of an Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery.

In its first public statement on the case, which has attracted worldwide attention, the Vatican decried stoning as a particularly brutal form of capital punishment.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.

It is unclear what chances any Vatican bid would have to persuade the Muslim nation to spare the woman’s life. Brazil, which has friendly relations with Iran, was rebuffed when it offered her asylum.

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was convicted in 2006 of adultery. In July, Iranian authorities said they would not carry out the stoning sentence for the time being, but the mother of two could still face execution by hanging for adultery and other offenses.

Comments

BornAgainAmerican 4 years, 3 months ago

Shariah law in the US? I would like to hear from the libs on this one.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes I have. What is your point? Are you just trying to argue that your religion based on magical and imaginary people in the sky is better than someone else's religion that is also based on magical and imaginary people in the sky?

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

This case is about Iran. If something like an "honor killing" takes place in the U.S., it is against the law. Your FoxNews fed alarm of Sharia Law has you confusing real laws with unlawful practices in the U.S..

independant1 4 years, 3 months ago

Amina and Sarah Said murdered in their fathers Taxi in Irving, TX, he subsequently fled the country.

The girls were well-liked and made good grades at Lewisville High School. Their father was strict and rarely let them spend time with friends. When Sarah, 17, recently met a boy at her job, she told a friend that her father would kill her if he found out.

Friends are now rethinking the way they understood that turn of phrase.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 3 months ago

This has much more to do with enforcing totalitarianism than sharia law.

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

So, I agree with bozo somewhat in that Iran is a totalitarianist country, and I'll agree with you Born Again that obviously, Islam has something to do wtih that. But you, BA, are painting the entire Muslim world with one brush stroke, when that's simply not accurate. Not every Muslim country's government is entirely goverened by Sharia law, and there are definitely varying levels of religiosity in the governments of Islamic. Look, it does no good to hate Islam. There are something like 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet. They're not going away. What needs to happen is that people need to continue to be educated, women need to be educated, and moderate Islam needs to be fostered and encouraged. It's fundamental Islam that's dangerous.

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

Well, how about the country of Turkey, for starters, as a great example of moderate Islam. Why is it my responsibility to come up with examples of moderate Islam for you? There's a big old Internet out there just waiting for you to tap into it.

Apparently what you and I are refering to as Sharia law doesn't have to mean stoning people to death. The Imam believes that most U.S. laws fit into Sharia law. Obviously, if there are muslims who think that they can get away practicing so-called honor killings in this country, they'll be put in prison, just as christian scientists will find themselves in jail if they deny medical treatment to their children and their children die. Freedom of religion and rule of law are two different things in this country. You are free to practice your religion until it hurts someone else. Then our laws step in and take over.

Personally, I'd like to see every person on the planet grow up and give up all religion, but that ain't gonna happen. I fully understand that people are free to believe what they want to believe, have friends of all religions and I fully support their rights to worship and believe as they wish. I also ask that people respect my right to be an atheist. Again, hating people and condeming their religions doesn't make those religions go away. We all have to learn to live with each other.

funkdog1 4 years, 3 months ago

Okay, be vigilant. That's fine. Nobody said you can't be vigilant.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

What about Kuwait? We even went to war to help them.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

Anti-American -- like demonizing voters when they don't elect your choice of candidate?

Flap Doodle 4 years, 3 months ago

Like what the folks on the sinister side of the aisle did in 2000 and 2004!

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes, believing there is such a thing as a sinister side of the aisle is anti-American.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 3 months ago

bea, "sinister" is Latin for "left". "right" is "dexter". Don't be so narrow minded when it comes to language.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

By the way Tom, I'm guessing Invictus doesn't need any lessons.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

"The fact is that it's near impossible to distinguish between the radicals and the others who only wish to practice their religion until it is too late."

Yes. They all look alike.

Freedom of religion ... as long as it is Christianity.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

Exactly what is the difference between "it's near impossible to distquish between the radicals and the others" and "they all look alike"? Feel free to explain yourself.

independant1 4 years, 3 months ago

In 2006, Ashtiani was accused of involvement in her husband's slaying. She was acquitted on that charge but sentenced to 10 years in prison because the killing "disturbed the public order." A separate court then charged her with adultery. But on what grounds was she convicted? Ashtiani maintains that she was coerced into confessing. In addition, Iran's penal code permits judges to determine guilt based on their own "knowledge" if there is an absence of evidence. Three of the five judges deciding her case condemned her to death on that basis. Meanwhile, the man convicted of killing her husband is free after paying "blood money" to the dead man's family.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

"... Perhaps the closest parallel to today’s hysteria about Islam is the 19th-century fear spread by the Know Nothing movement about 'the Catholic menace.' One book warned that Catholicism was 'the primary source' of all of America’s misfortunes, and there were whispering campaigns that presidents including Martin Van Buren and William McKinley were secretly working with the pope. Does that sound familiar?

Critics warned that the pope was plotting to snatch the Mississippi Valley and secretly conspiring to overthrow American democracy. 'Rome looks with wistful eye to domination of this broad land, a magnificent seat for a sovereign pontiff,' one writer cautioned." ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html?src=me&ref=homepage

jimmyjms 4 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 3 months ago

The Vatican is correct to condemn stoning. Stoning is a medieval retribution that has no place in modern society or anywhere in the modern world.

Stoning is a great example of how religion can easily aid a person or group of people to commit atrocities with moral justification. Stoning is a great example of how religion is in opposition to a reasoned, free, fair, and modern society.

denak 4 years, 3 months ago

Except it is religion that is the basis of the Vatican's possible intervention. But I shouldn't point that out considering that their response is reasoned, fair and in keeping in line with a modern society.

jonas_opines 4 years, 3 months ago

I've only kept moderate attention on this case, so I may be in error, but isn't she a widow because her and her lover plotted to kill, and then murdered, her husband?

independant1 4 years, 3 months ago

Hard to say, all I know is what I read -

Mohammadi Ashtiani was first convicted in 2006 of having an "illicit relationship" with two men after the death of her husband and was sentenced by a court to 99 lashes. Later that year she was also convicted of adultery and sentenced to be stoned to death, even though she retracted a confession that she claims was made under duress. Iran lifted that sentence last month, but now says that she has been convicted of involvement in her husband's killing.

According to the Iranian courts, her husband, Ebrahim Qaderzadeh, 44, was found dead on his bathroom floor in Meshkinshahr, in north-west Iran. Mohammadi Ashtiani is said by Iranian officials to have confessed to having had an extramarital affair with the killer, Eisa Taheri, and to have said that she had seduced him. The judiciary has also claimed that she confessed to having planned the murder in collaboration with Taheri, claims that are vigorously denied by her family.

Last month she was presented on Iranian state television where she "confessed" to involvement in the murder of her husband in a television interview recorded in Tabriz prison, where she is being held. It was suggested at that time that the 43-year-old had been tortured for two days before the recording of the confession.

Sajad also appealed to Mohammad Mostafaei not to make any more comments either on his mother's case or on his father's death.

Since her case has captured world attention, Iranian officials have claimed she was an accomplice to the murder of her husband, although her government-appointed lawyer, Houtan Kian, has accused the government of inventing charges against her.

Sajad has said the only reason his mother is still alive is because of the international campaign for her release.

deec 4 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, but we'd kill her in a civilized way. Like hanging...oh wait....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.