Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I have to say, this news of a law abolishing stoning as a punishment in Iran was news to me until I read this piece that was posted on Loonwatch.

The case of Ashtiani, the lady whose husband was murdered and who was sentenced to death by stoning, was well highlighted in the past and discussed in the past.

If you click through to the link below, the guys at Loonwatch also give a good summary of the Islamic position on stoning - highlighting the fact that stoning is not a Quranic punishment.

A main point of the article is to explain that there is no one unique set of Shariah laws - there are some fundamental principles and laws, but the legal system of an Islamic state is like the legal system of any other state - there is a need and room for judicial interpretation and review.

A lesson from Iran: Islamic Sharia is flexible after all
by Salah Al-Nasrawi, Ahram (Egypt)

A new law by the Islamic Republic of Iran to abolish stoning to death for adulterers passed last month has been received with a lot of skepticism in the West and little attention in the Arab and Islamic world.

But the ruling could have a significant bearing on the debate about the role of Islamic Sharia as Islamic groups gain power throughout the Middle East with many of them aspire to see Islamic jurisdiction as the law of the land.

Iran’s Guardian Council and Iranian parliament have approved an amendment to the country’s penal code by removing all executions by stoning which will come into effect once signed by the country’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under Iran’s old penal code, stoning to death was one of the sentences applied for adultery. Iranian activists who campaigned against the practice said at least 99 men and women have been executed by stoning over the last 30 years.
The stoning sentence against Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 45-year-old Iranian woman, on charges of adultery and murder in 2006 has turned the spotlight on Iran as one of very few countries which adopts Sharia, or Islamic law.

The concept was equated in the West and among Muslim secularists with a variety of retributions including stoning of adulterers, chopping of limbs of thieves, death in blasphemy cases and restrictions on rights of women and minorities.
Ashtiani’s was convicted of having an “illicit relationship” with two men after the murder of her husband and was sentenced to 99 lashes. The verdict led to an international condemnation which has made Tehran delay carrying out the sentence.
...

Via loonwatch:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/salah- ... after-all/

Cheers,
Shafique

What they do is far away from Islam, but the part that they are flexible can be clearly seen in a documentary called "Prostitution: Behind the Veil". It can be found on Youtube.

I'll have to agree on that. Iran is the last place one should be looking for Islamic Jurisprudence or its implementation.

^the point is that when the stoning sentence was being discussed, then Iran +was+ being taken as the epitome of Islamic jurisprudence. DDS, you and I haven't changed our stance on the matter (that they aren't representative) - so this article isn't to persuade us of the truth we knew all along.

Cheers,

Shafique

Of course Iran is not representative of islamic jurisprudence, as I said before while there are other muslim nations using democracy as a means of military dictortorship to rule and take control of their nation's cultural behaviour in the way it is required. There are also sharia ruled muslim nations doing the same thing using political islam, in this case Iran after islamic reveloution opted to create their own political interpretation of islam (which is reactionary to western manipulation) for military dictatorship to rule and to take control of their nations cultural issues accordingly. But as western world weakens and loosens political/cultural pressure on middleast all of those muslim nations will in time tranform to be nations of proper human rights and development..

Berrin wrote:But as western world weakens and loosens political/cultural pressure on middleast all of those muslim nations will in time tranform to be nations of proper human rights and development..

Are you saying that Western pressure on the Middle East is what is causing a lack of human rights and development in those countries?

What happens is that if western world tries to implement their way of life (political/cultural) to the people that are not ready to receive or to welcome this alien culture than things start to turn upside down, as locals turn inwards and resistance starts, it then backlashes and dictatorship starts, then local public eventually withdraws themselves and not be interested in political,educational, cultural life as discrepancies and deviations will even start amongst themselves.This brings turmoils, universities/schools get into more and more political confrontations,...as there is no rest,time and resources for advancement educational quality topples, certain style of regime gets hold of state and every state run institution begins to take control of peoples mind which is what we call oppression then stagnation starts, morality hits bottom low, poverty starts as confidence in that particular nation is lost while investment and educational standards all declined and fell... Sounds familiar with MENA? Now under these conditions we cannot talk about human rights can we? this is the way how western world "indirectly" meddles with human rights..

Earlier I added this video I found on the net... Shows how western culture within the state was dictated under the dominance of european power which ended sharia in Ottoman Turkey... Turks were made to think that islam was the reason why they declined and became backward state.. And were encouraged to be part of European revolution.. So pathetic that I kept laughing and laughing when I come acroos this on the tube...

Berrin, I think that is all one big fat excuse. There are many complicated factors involved and the existing problems in a country create the lack of human rights seen there, not the democratic West.

Human rights thrive under social and economic development that nourishes society natrually from within, nations that are let to dwell in poverty and rely on funds like marshall never meant to prosper and stand on their on feet... for instance in 1936 Turkey had many private investors building railways and even able to build engines and aircrafts ( the factory of Nuri Demirag), all manufactured and built locally, they were even receiving purchase orders from abroad, but later as Europe and USA meddled with Turkish politics(cold war), local investment were ordered to close down and replaced with western funds. Turks then lost all this tecnologic invesments and the accumulation of knowledge to built/develop industry/country/region.. Why, becouse the armes and industrial development race was between capital west and communist russia.. MENA was not let to raise to be rival to any of these powers(but to be in their camp to buy their services).. Why, becouse israel was also meant to be born as a new state that could not handle strategically strong muslim nations..

The coloser the muslim nations were to Europe and israel, the worse their social/political/economic conditions were damaged, the puppet regimes that have been built by the leading camp powers is still so strong that they cannot easily undone themselves, as they are now well footed and got hooked themselves on the neck of people like parasites sucking the blood of national instituations and public..

Did Turks lose out because high powered Turkish government people and business people enjoyed their pockets being filled by the Europeans/North Americans at the expense of national interests? How can you blame the West for such things - seems all parties were looking out for their own best interest, not necessarily what was best for the nation as a whole. Higher-ups are often complicit if it means they get wealthy or gain more power - it doesn't matter what country they are from or what religion they practice. Iran has been meddling in the Middle East... wouldn't you say it has had a detrimental effect on human rights in its neighbouring countries?

Interesting exchange of views above!

My study of history and current day politics leads me to conclude that Berrin has a very good point about how the strong European nations have been complicity in the problems he's highlighting. The effects are not just in the Middle East, but in Asia, Africa and the Americas too - and indeed in Europe as well.

Where kanelli is blaming those in power in the Mid East - I also agree with her. But I also note that it takes a brave leader to go against the wishes of the super power(s) and put national interests first - Mossadeq tried in Iran, Allende in Chile , Nasser in Egypt.. Ghadaffi tried for a while, then recanted and still came to a cropper! Haiti and Grenada were both invaded..

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have both dared to challenge the authority of the 'masters'..

Malaysia learnt lessons early on and has chosen not to go the IMF and World Bank route - and has prospered. All the countries that took the IMF coin have suffered in comparison.

From my perspective it is all related. And complex.

We can't blame all the ills on the 'West' - the leaders have to take responsibility. But we can't ignore the very real and significant effect the 'outside powers' have and are playing in the affairs of the region.

(Oh, and for the Turks - they lost a war, and a lot of the issues in Palestine are because of what happened after the Europeans gained control of Ottoman controlled land)

Cheers,

Shafique

shafique wrote:Iran law on Stoning - shows Sharia is Flexible

Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

shafique wrote:A main point of the article is to explain that there is no one unique set of Shariah laws - there are some fundamental principles and laws, but the legal system of an Islamic state is like the legal system of any other state - there is a need and room for judicial interpretation and review

The room for judicial interpretation is a good thing - don't you agree?

Cheers,

Shafique

A too flexible law system is a fertile environment for corruption to grow and evolve...
I think.

Too rigid a set of laws leaves the law too much in the hands of politicians IMO .. and I'd like to think judges are better placed than politicians to pass sentences. Just my view.

Cheers,

Shafique

Any time a greater power is influencing a less-greater power, it can corrupt. I'm not saying the West is blame-free. I was saying that it was complex and all of the blame cannot be placed on the West. When I look at human rights specifically, I see other factors involved than just Western economic or political interests. There are plenty of human rights abuses that are happening due to existing cultural and political conditions, like caste systems, and differeing views on the rights of women and children. In the West the average person enjoys a level of human rights that others in other countries can only dream of... that's why they are inspired to make changes in human rights in their own countries (and yes cause some civil unrest to achieve that worthy goal), or choose to immigrate to the West.

kanelli wrote: Did Turks lose out because high powered Turkish government people and business people enjoyed their pockets being filled by the Europeans/North Americans at the expense of national interests?

Well tho I am not an expert I read historical facts of ME nations from time to time. All I can say is that Turks did not have much say in their political shaping of the country as they were weakaned by the rising Euro/American politics.. They too had their own puppet committes that developed into single party/ideology regimes that changed public life and rule of law agaist the will of the nation.. For almost a century many politicians/diplomats/journalists/writers/business people who were on the opposition against hegamony have been either assasinated ,exiled or had been hanged including a prime minister who was considered to be a threat to the new republic regime after the empire was toppled.

kanelli wrote:How can you blame the West for such things - seems all parties were looking out for their own best interest, not necessarily what was best for the nation as a whole.

If a country has no effecient well equipped army, it basically has no political power, after the foundation of the republic its political future was under the guardianship of the west and it's army force has been established by the foreign hegamony under military dictatorship...In democracies where there is military dictatorship politicians have not much power other than often giving false promises and hopes to people to be elected, then ofcourse they too become puppets being the part of imposed regime taking orders from the millitary rulers.. any politician makes lobby against the army regime,basically silenced either by force or death. Almost all ME nations faced military coups, like once every decade against opposition rival ideologies /parties and rising public demonstrations.. It's only the last decade or so that Turks enjoy a rather democratic environment as political climate of the world has been changing into more liberal one since the end of cold war.

kanelli wrote: Iran has been meddling in the Middle East... wouldn't you say it has had a detrimental effect on human rights in its neighbouring countries?

If iran has been meddling in the middle east that's because no other powerful nation leaves ME on its own without meddling in the politics of the nations of this region!. Iranians take their own share of it for their own national security reasons for which I think they have a right to do so...

Human rights issues always suffer in all of the countries where there is military dictatorship, whether that dictortorship has been built by foreign powers or self determined by the nation's people against foreign threat (as in the case of iran) makes no difference at all.. Works the same way...

--- Sat May 05, 2012 6:35 pm ---

kanelli wrote:When I look at human rights specifically, I see other factors involved than just Western economic or political interests. There are plenty of human rights abuses that are happening due to existing cultural and political conditions, like caste systems, and differeing views on the rights of women and children

Majority of the time, real reforms to transfrom a nation often takes place when political climate changes for the better with least (negative)pressure on the state admin and public (internal/external). In this century for that to happen a few combination of factors must be developing in the country, that is quality of human stock(education), a healty developing trade/industry/farming and a rather well equipped/trained/organised army..