A Discussion About stoning, Iranian revolution and cultural relativism

Below is a very important piece that addresses the "useful idiots'", the savvy (savage non-Iranian) Islamists' and in general racist cultural relativists' various amoral arguments:

Pleateau of Iran:

Some of you may have already heard that according to Islamic Republic judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi in Tehran, the stoning of the man, Jafar Kiani, was carried out in a village in Qazvin province (northwestern Iran). This punishment was allegedly for commiting adultery.

As a result of this recent news, someone (a non-Iranian) made the following comment elsewhere. Note: the comment was not directed at me, but I did respond to the commentator. I want to focus on the content and nature of both the comment (not the person) and my response to it since I believe they are sufficiently important to republish them here:

The Comment:

“Again: Would you be outraged if Saddam Hussein was stoned???

Capital punishment whether it’s stoning, hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection is not torture. It may cause pain but that’s not the primary reason capital punishment is enforced. The primary reason is to put to death the criminal. Nice try but the issue is not whether someone values life more than marriage. You can value both. The issues are what is valued in a soceity, what crimes constitutes a capital offense and why?

Laws reflect and punishments for breaking those laws tell you what is valued in a soceity. Why shouldn’t adultery be a capital offense? Is adultery even wrong to you? Try not to name call when you answer the questions. I’m just asking. I don’t think anybody, outside of being a Christian, can give me a sound reason why adultery should not be a capital offense.

My Response:

You have raised some very interesting, but complex points as far as Iran under the ruling Mullahs is concerned.

1. Whether capital punishment, in general, should exist is debatable and I don’t think it is the sole issue here. Personally, I don’t believe in a death verdict/sentence for adultery.

2. Regardless of capital punishment and death sentence (as ultimate verdicts), the process of arriving at such verdict and the method by which the death sentence is carried out are equally important.

Are you aware that stoning prior to mullah rule was not part of the law in Iran? Bear in mind that I’m referring to 3000 year plus history of Iran, not just the Shah’s era. Do you also realize that the act of stoning is often performed by a group of people including children? Stoning is in fact torture which leads to death. It is a slow and painful death/execution. Stones used to hit the person must be of certain shape and size. Using big stones that can lead to instant death are against the Islamic law (sharia) in Iran.

Moreover, the basis for stoning a person is a ritual which is practiced by muslim pilgrims visiting Mecca. It is called “stoning of the Devil/Satan”. During this ritual, pilgrims must personally look for and gather appropriate shape/size stones, bring them back to an appropriate location and begin to throw them at a pretend-to-be devil as an act of denouncing and renouncing the Devil (Satan). However, there are vast differences between stoning a pretend-to-be-devil vs. a real person.

3. The judiciary, legal system and courts, in general, in Mullah ruled Iran are absolutely dysfunctional. Two different people can be sentenced to two different punishments for exactly the same crime depending on how much each one is favored by those in charge of passing the sentence. If stoning for adultery was to be applied across the board, then many of the ruling mullahs and their cohorts should have stoned to death long ago. Not to mention that many of the articles which currently exist in Islamic government constitution are not adhered to or are generally so vague and codified that one can interpret them any way one wants to and is expedient. They are highly subjective. Regardless, stoning, as a form of punishment for a capital offense, is actually mentioned in IR constitution including articles 83, 102 and 104.

4. “what is valued in a soceity, what crimes constitutes a capital offense and why?” Adultery is not valued in Iranian society, but nor is stoning. Stoning is valued and enforced by Mullahs in the society. There lies the difference. However, I don’t dispute that certain groups actually enjoy it such as: Bassij thugs and those who get their kicks out of torture and killing of others. I consider them sadists and mentally unstable i.e. psychotic.

5. How do we define adultery in Mullah ruled Iran? Have you heard of temporary marriage “seegheh”? Under sharia (Islamic law in Iran) with a few words, you can become temporarily married to someone for any period of time. Women often practice it due to economic/financial hardship. Even married women, whose husbands may be unable to provide for them and the family because of drug addiction (Iran has a very high percentage of drug addicts) can be temporarily married in order to feed their family and children. Of course, “seegheh” to me is not only a legalized form of prostitution, but it can also be construed as adultery. Men in current Iran can have 4 wives at the same time. Additionally, men can have up to 12 “seegheh” i.e. concubines. Traditionally, the practice of polygamy and “seegheh” - an arab/muslim practice - are frowned upon by the mainstream in Iran and never existed in Persian society or culture, certainly not prior to Islamic laws being enforced in the society and in people’s personal lives.

In conclusion, I think your reasoning, as far as mullah ruled Iran is concerned is rather simplistic. And, I hope you will find the above informative."

Also below I have selected a few sample of my previous posts regarding the amoral/racist/fascistic cultural relativist argument and their uninformed assertion about the Iranian revolution: This might seem repetitive to those who have been a long time reader of my blog. However, I think they're worth re-posting for my new readers who have shown interest in learning about Iran and the Iranian revolution and how it was hijacked by Khomein's thugs:

"Cultural relativists say Iranian society is Muslim, implying that people choose to live the way they are forced to. It's as if there are no differences in beliefs in Iran, no struggles, no communists, no socialists, and no freedom-lovers.

If so, why have 150,000 people been executed for opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran? If it’s the entire society's culture and religion, why does the Islamic regime need such extensive tools for repression? If it’s people’s beliefs, why does the regime control their private lives - from their sexual activities, to what video they watch, to what music they listen to?

If the entire society is Muslim, why did Zoleykhah Kadkhoda enter a voluntary sexual relationship for which she was buried in a ditch and stoned? If it is people's culture, why did the residents of Bukan revolt against the stoning and save her life? Why are thousands of women rounded up in the streets for “improper” veiling if its their culture and religion? How come, after two decades of terror and brutality, the universities are still not Islamic, according to an official of the regime? Though it's untrue, even if every person living in Iran had reactionary beliefs, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. If everyone believes in the superiority of their race, does that make it okay?

Cultural relativists say that we must respect people's culture and religion, however despicable. This is absurd and calls for the respect of savagery. Yes, human beings are worthy of respect but not all beliefs must be respected. If culture allows a woman to be mutilated and killed to save the family “honor,” it cannot be excused. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, religion rules and has become the mass murderer of people. If religion says that women who disobey should be beaten, that flogging is acceptable, and that women are deficient, it must be condemned and opposed"...more:

http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/cultural_relativism_fascism.html

Also Please read "Lost Wisdom" by Abbas Milani to realize that Iran was never run by Islamic laws (Sharia) despite its 1400 years of occupation by Islamist until the Islamic Republic took hold of Iran in the last 29 years.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Wisdom-Rethinking-Modernity-Iran/dp/0934211906


For the actual 3500 year history and culture I highly recommend Tom Holland’s “Persian fire : the first world empire and the battle for the West”.

http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Fire-First-Empire-Battle/dp/0385513119/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1368292-5112658?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173677731&sr=8-1

My plea to leftis liberals: For God's or humanity's sake stop politicizing human sufferings for your own political agenda and expediencey.

You can also read all my posts regarding Persian culture of 3000 plus years and not just the past 28 years:

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/search/label/Persian%20Empire


Must read articles regarding the Iranian revolution:

http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=9

Janet Afary's piece on Iranain nation's struggle for democracy, dating back to 100 years ago:

"Janat Afary and Kevin Anderson give us glimpses into the 100-year old struggle of Iranians to gain democracy and liberty. A long and almost thoroughly researched article but well worth the read. Some highlights:


What went wrong? When reform-minded Iranians discuss this question, the conversation often turns to the 1906-11 Constitutional Revolution, widely seen as a missed opportunity for democratic modernization. This has been especially true in the past couple of years, as its centenary is celebrated by Iranians at home and abroad.


The Constitutional Revolution was the first democratic revolution to take place in the Middle East, and perhaps the most important. The revolution established a freely elected Parliament and a Constitution with civil liberties, severely limited the powers of the shah and promoted the establishment of women's schools and councils. It also set up a state-based judiciary that challenged the traditional authority of the Shiite clerics. As Yann Richard, France's leading Iran specialist, observes in his latest book L'Iran: Naissance d'une république islamique (Birth of an Islamic Republic), from the late eighteenth century through the mid-nineteenth century the Shiite clergy had provided a counterweight to the monarchy.

But with the emergence of two heterodox offshoots of Shiism in the mid-nineteenth century, Babism and Bahaism--both of which challenged social hierarchies, including gender inequality--the clerical establishment drew closer to the state in order to combat these dissident religious movements. When the Constitutional Revolution broke out, some influential clerics sided with the state; one of them, Sheikh Fazlullah Nuri, was executed by the revolutionaries. Yet the leading clerics were by no means united in opposition to the revolution: Quite a few embraced the changes, with some going so far as to endorse Nuri's execution.


As Hamid Dabashi recounts in Iran: A People Interrupted, this "revolution in the very moral fabric of a nation" was, like most later progressive movements in Iran, marked by the participation of its ethnic and religious minorities--Azeris, Armenians, Bahais and Jews. The revolution also saw an unprecedented flowering of Iranian literature. Hoping to build what Dabashi calls "an anti-colonial modernity," the great writer Ali Akbar Dehkhoda launched a campaign in the press against oppressive social customs (especially regarding gender). Socialist ideas from the 1905 Russian Revolution entered the country through Baku and Tbilisi... Much more

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/afary

http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com/2007/07/iranian-impasse.html

If you want to see what a stoning to death looks like, then click here. But be warned.

Also read, Potkin's reflections on Lenin and the recent stoning in Iran as a mother of three children awaits her scheduled stoning to be carried out by the savage Islamists.