Help save seven women from being stoned to death in Iran

Amnesty International has issued an urgent appeal to its members regarding the impending execution of seven women in Iran. The women are to be stoned to death for "crimes against chastity":

Under Shari'a law, a prisoner is buried up to her breast, her hands restrained. Rules also specify the size of the stones which can be thrown so that death is painful and not imminent. Both men and women can be sentenced to die by stoning. In practise, however, an overwhelming number of women receive that penalty. [IPS]

The sentences will be carried out in eight days. Ali Eteraz explains how you can help save these women by writing to Iran's Minister of Justice. His post includes the full text of a letter imploring the minister to spare these women in the name of international human rights. All you have to do is sign your name. Or, write your own and submit it to the minister at the address supplied.

Comments

[Count Zero]

"The sentence of execution by stoning for adultery breaches Iran's commitment under article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that death sentences will be imposed ‘only for the most serious crimes'," Amnesty wrote in its appeal."

So much for "no-fault" divorces. I'm suprised they aren't as leniant with forced prostitution cases. Given Iran's record with on human rights, I doubt they care what AI thinks, or most the world for that matter.

[mds]

Given Iran's record with on human rights, I doubt they care what AI thinks, or most the world for that matter.

Nope, they're not amenable to any pressure from the international community on anything. The only option is regime change by invasion. Then we might finally be able to bring our embassy hostages home, too. Oh, if only back-channel negotiations worked.

Anyway, this is just more evidence that liberals don't care about women's rights, because otherwise they'd be demanding we use bunker-buster nuclear weapons on Iran. Or something.

In fact, I'm so cranky today, I think it's time to invoke al-Godwin's law:

Given the US's recent record on human rights, I doubt they care what AI thinks, or most the world for that matter.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Think positive. Thanks for posting this, Lindsay.

[Anthony Damiani]

I'm rather with Zero on ths one. I honestly have difficulty imagining my opinion (the opinion of a foreigner, an American no less, written in a language I do not believe he speaks) would add any measurable persuasive weight to Ayatollah Khameini whatsoever. While clearly these actions are heinous, there seems little prospect of successful intervention.

[Anthony Damiani]

In fact, I'm so cranky today, I think it's time to invoke al-Godwin's law:

Given the US's recent record on human rights, I doubt they care what AI thinks, or most the world for that matter.

I think the torture bill demonstrated this quite adequately, don't you?

[Count Zero]

Yeah, I think coming from American's they would just go...you got to be kidding right? We're not Muslim, so to them, we have no right to comment on Sharia law. Secondly, as Anthony D. says, we have no moral ground. So yes, regime change might be the only way they change their minds, go figure. If the world doesn't want to confront them over their nuclear program, I doubt it will be able to do much about their human rights abuses. MDS, I think it's a good fight to try, though, realistically given their attitude, I doubt it will accomplish much. They have no desire to participate in a global economy, or global politics, which is why they model themselves after North Korea. Look where it got North Korea, they got what they wanted...they'll be testing their nukes soon, and then it's a totally different political ballgame.

[shrike]

This liberal finds Islam to be a despicable belief system - even worse than its sister religion, Christianity.

Which all makes the Iraq debacle even harder to fathom. Given that the new Iraqi Consitution states at the outset that "no law may contradict Islamic Sharia", I find it amazingly inept that Mr. Bush and his unintelligent legion are helping build up the VERY SAME belief system that contributes to Islamofascism and terrorism. Iraq will eventually be the centerpiece of the new caliphate.

We are, in fact, our own worst enemy when we operate in a mode of religious faith rather than enlightened reason.

[Count Zero]

Well we are giving them Democrasy shrike....one just like Iran has. Maybe that's what the administration wants, a perpetual religious war which also props up the military industrial complex. It's a win/win scenario for corporate/religious Republicans.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't regard Islam as a despicable belief system.* I think that some people do terrible things in the name of Islam--but on the whole, no moreso than other world religions.

Any putatively holy book that was written hundreds of years ago will have some practical advice for living that probably seemed as banal as self-help books do to us, but which we (should) recognize as abhorrent today.

All fundamentalists have the crazy and dangerous belief that you can go back to these ancient self-help manuals and take them literally! (Nobody really does that of course. Everyone picks and chooses and imposes interpretation. It's not even clear what it would be to take aphorisms and poetry literally.)

For example, George Bush believes he has been chosen by God to crusade against evil, a delusion that led him to start an illegal war and kill tens of thousands of innocent people.

So, let's not single out Islam.

[shrike]

Democracy without a Bill of Rights is nothing more than mob rule.

Or, as a colleague says - "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans"

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

I'm rather with Zero on ths one. I honestly have difficulty imagining my opinion (the opinion of a foreigner, an American no less, written in a language I do not believe he speaks) would add any measurable persuasive weight to Ayatollah Khameini whatsoever. While clearly these actions are heinous, there seems little prospect of successful intervention.

I _strenuously_ disagree.

Amnesty International's entire reason for being, in fact, is that by bringing exactly such pressure to bear on despotic governments, they do in fact embarrass many of them into reducing sentences, or into letting the unjustly imprisoned go free, often largely on the basis of letter-writing campaigns such as this one. They certainly don't succeed in every case, but in many, many cases, they have had concrete, positive results. It works.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

I don't regard Islam as a despicable belief system. I think that some people do terrible things in the name of Islam--but on the whole, no moreso than other world religions.

Any putatively holy book that was written hundreds of years ago will have some practical advice for living that probably seemed as banal as self-help books do to us, but which we (should) recognize as abhorrent today.

All fundamentalists have the crazy and dangerous belief that you can go back to these ancient self-help manuals and take them literally! (Nobody really does that of course. Everyone picks and chooses and imposes interpretation. It's even clear what it would be to take aphorisms and poetry literally.)

I agree with this. Fundamentalists of every stripe cherry-pick their favorite beliefs (something that they love accusing others of doing), break certain of their laws, or even assert things as being part of their religion that have no basis in it at all. I once saw a Christian fundamentalist in the audience of the Phil Donahue show, who, when challenged with "judge not, lest ye be judged," responded: "we judge people all the time!" He was asserting judgment as a Christian virtue, in blatant contradiction to his own scripture. And when it comes to brutality comparisons, there is enough body count behind each religion to indicate that each is culpable, often in ways that seem justified by their own scripture. Reading scripture literally, and as applicable to all times and situations, is a pitfall common to all religions.

More importantly, it is very important not to paint all Iranians or all Muslims as one big howling mob. There is a huge amount of Muslims who find stoning or other such repressive acts to be detestable.

[Wade]

I don't regard Islam as a despicable belief system. I think that some people do terrible things in the name of Islam--but on the whole, no more so than other world religions...So let's not single out Islam.

Right, it's a wash. Me, I'm glad that we can set all these beliefs aside as having originated in some ancient self-help manual or other. Saves my having to look at the manuals themselves.

[mudkitty]

Hey, it's in the bible...

[shrike]

Both the Bible and the Koran specify stoning to death as a punishment for a myriad of "crimes" - mostly sexual and mostly against women.

As a humanist, I do not believe that Jesus ever existed literally, but nevertheless - he was the first Liberal. Stonings were so common at that time that when he happened upon one he was asked to join in, ostensibally as a test to his compliance with Mosaic Law.

His famous reply was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (ironically, it was an adulterous woman who was about to be stoned to death).

The reply brilliantly sidestepped the cruel application of law - and thus "Liberalism" emerged Judaism (later Christianity). Liberalism = rational morality as opposed to adherence to custom.

No reformer can step forward in Islam because he would be branded a heretic rather than a prophet.

[The Phantom]

--No reformer can step forward in Islam because he would be branded a heretic rather than a prophet--

I fear you are absolutely correct.

--There is a huge amount of Muslims who find stoning or other such repressive acts to be detestable.--
Also correct. There are immense numbers of Persians ( as many Iranians call themselves ) who are filled with hatred for this regime and these practices.

[dAVE]

Hmm.. I believe that the Koran stipulates that there must be 3 witnesses to the actual act of penetration in order to convict a woman of adultery. So, it is extremely hard to prove. (An improvement on the Mosaic Law, which had no such requirement.)

It is higly unlikely that this requirement was met, so these women were unjustly convicted. That may be an angle to take in a letter.

[mds]

There are immense numbers of Persians ( as many Iranians call themselves ) who are filled with hatred for this regime and these practices.

In fact, if the US invades, we'll be greeted with rose petals.

A bunch of leftist intellectuals, hostile to the true faith of their country, and insufficiently patriotic, do indeed prefer the term Persians for international use, just as we don't refer to Germans using "Deutsch-" Of course, most of these folks also think the country itself should likewise be referred to as "Persia," even though this is a Latin borrowing of a Greek term that corrupted the Aryan term, and the people have referred to themselves as living in "Iran" since the time of the Sassanids. Wouldn't using "Persia" complicate this administration's (and presumably the Phantom's) ability to catapault the propaganda by simply changing Iraq to Iran? Anyhoo,

didn't these immense numbers of Persians who are filled with hatred for this regime elect a reformist president as a reproof to the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians? Wasn't this reformer still president when the US labeled his country part of the "axis of evil" and rejected all back-channel overtures for dialogue? Did these immense numbers then diminish sufficiently to lead to the election of Ahmadinejad? 'Cause I can't really follow these things in any detail, and would like the Phantom to explain Persian politics further.

I'll leave on the back burner the blanket assertion that is impossible for a reformer of Islam to step forward, because I'm out of electrons.

[The Phantom]

std

There are allegations that the Iranian election was stolen. An argument that the many here silly enough to believe Al Gore Florida war stories should jump all over.

Islamic reform

It's theoretically possible, 'spose. It's theoretically possible that a pig will fly tomorrow morning. (oops, hope the animal reference does not offend )

There certainly are plenty of open-minded people who come from Islamic background, more than some people think, but whether it leads to any large reform is probably doubtful. There's nothing in 1300 years of history to give a great deal of hope.

But wait--up in the sky? It's a bird! It's a plane!

[B-money]

Who really cares?? This is the religion these people chose, and as a result, they must live within its domain and be subject to its punishments. As we are told by the left and the world, Iran is a sovreign nation and can do what it wants. Leave them alone. Let them live in their lunacy. It is clearly what they want. While I think that this method of punishment is ridiculously cruel, these people know the rules and choose to live that way. Who is AI to say that it is wrong? In fact, who are any of us to say it is "wrong"? Many here, like our moderator, are atheists. Others here are Christians or Roman Catholics. We would not someone telling us what to do or how to practice our religion. So how can we honestly do the same when it comes to Islam and its brutal, barbaric ways without being hypocrites?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

B-Money, that comment reads like a parody of cultural relativism.

[mds]

Perhaps B-money is simply spoofing Republican talking points, where having the Taliban involved in governing Afghanistan is a good thing, and cover-ups involving government officials' consensual sexual activities with temporary government employees are really no big deal after all.

So, that's the best that the Ghost Who Walks can do, eh? Say that liberals should be claiming that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because we think a different election was stolen? Since the election didn't hinge on a few hundred votes, and the Council of Guardians didn't intervene to pick their preferred winner, I'm not certain I follow this analogy. Interesting how that rallying cry to liberate the huddled "Persian" masses yearning to breathe free was abandoned, to focus primarily on the subject that I said I wasn't bothering to address. But what can I say? It's true all Islam, everywhere in the world, is practiced exactly the way it was under Muhammed, and always has been. Fazlur Rahman was executed as a heretic, Khatami never was president of Iran, and Professor Shabestari is still holed up in an undisclosed location at the University of Tehran for fear of being drawn and quartered. Whatever.

[B-money]

I was being a bit cheeky with my comments. Clearly this practice, and many others in relation to women, is barbaric, mysoginistic, horrible, etc. And while I applaud AI for bringing this issue to the forefront, as it has been pointed out here, there is not much that Iran's power people will listen to, expecially from the US and any organization associated with it.

I just hope that examples like this aren't used as a pretext, along with the nuclear issue, by the Bush administration to convince us that war with Iran is necessary.

[nicteis]

Does anyone know why the Amnesty International page has pulled the document describing these cases?

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

And while I applaud AI for bringing this issue to the forefront, as it has been pointed out here, there is not much that Iran's power people will listen to, expecially from the US and any organization associated with it.

Sorry, I must correct this again: Amnesty International is not an American organization. It was founded by an Englishman in the 1960s, lawyer Peter Benenson, in response to the arrest of two Portuguese men who were incarcerated for drinking a toast to freedom. It has http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng>members in over 150 countries worldwide, and is not affiliated with any religion in particular.

It is neither a US organization (the US, again, is but one of over 150 countries from which Amnesty International works), nor is it ineffective and hopeless. They have secured the release of or improvement of conditions for _HUNDREDS_--Hundreds--of unjustly incarcerated and/or badly-treated prisoners over the decades, often from the prisons of the most brutal, hostile governments.

In the face of this clear record of just such successes, once again, to say that it is hopeless to try to secure the release of the unjustly imprisoned, simply because their captors are cynical, brutal and arrogant, ignores the facts. It may not succeed every time, but again, Amnesty International has amply demonstrated that their attention--your attention--to abuse matters to a great many torturing governments, and to those who imprison people unjustly.